Are guarantees being eroded.

[Love2print]

Are you asking me to provide details of a hypothetical fault so that I can then explain how someone could prove that the fault actually exists?

Errr, well, I've never heard of that one. And I work in IT, I even did a stint in the early years of helpdesk and hardware support.

Yes, that would be good evidence of course.

I never claimed that you wouldn't have to somehow prove that there was a fault. That's still true within the first 6 months.

 

You've set up a strawman there. I didn't claim that you wouldn't need evidence that the device is faulty.

What I said was that (assuming you can prove it is a fault) that durability is part of the contract and that the test is whether a "reasonable person" would expect greater durability. And that test depends on many things such as what the item is, how much it cost, etc...

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2017 at 10:14 ----------

 

The consumer doesn't have to prove that the device should last longer than X. That's the argument they make, based on the consumer law that you linked to. You don't appear to like that legislation anymore though...

 

Not sure what you mean I don't like it, you were the one who for example argued about burden of proof after 6 months - not me.

 

No strawman. You wrote

The burden of proof for not meeting the durability test is that it is now broken, before a reasonable person would expect it to be.

It's quite a low burden to meet. Just convince the magistrate that a reasonable person would expect X to last greater than Y.

 

You never said that you would provide evidence of a fault. You said in your last post "What I said was that (assuming you can prove it is a fault) that durability is part of the contract.." - except that you never did say that you would provide evidence of a fault in previous posts- you've only just added that after. You also wrote

 

If a reasonable person would expect a £2000 TV to last more than a year, then the consumer won't have to prove anything except that a reasonable person would expect that.

 

So you said they won't have to prove anything expect what a reasonable person would expect a TV to last more than a year, not they won't have to prove anything bar a fault and the fact that a reasonable person would expect it to last more than a year. So no strawman needed.

 

I also worked on in IT, on front line support. And yes static build up can cause a PC not to power on.

[Cyclone]

I'm not arguing about the burden of proof, you appear to want to, but I'm not.

 

Yes, I wrote about the durability test and you then started talking about proving a product was faulty in the first place. A totally different thing.

 

And yes, in the context that I wrote about the reasonable test, that still stands. I didn't say or imply that they wouldn't have to prove that there was really a fault. That was your strawman argument.

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2017 at 14:27 ----------

 

The burden of proof for not meeting the durability test is that it is now broken, before a reasonable person would expect it to be.

 

To put it all back in context, I stated that it had to actually be broken. Clearly that would have to be established to the satisfaction of a magistrate if necessary.

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2017 at 14:32 ----------

 

“(14) For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and © and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.”

 

In plain English: if you report a fault or that the product does not conform to contract in another way within the first 6 months then it is assumed that the product did not conform to contract on the day of sale. Therefore if a retailer disagrees they would need to provide evidence otherwise. After that it is assumed that it does conform to contract. If you were to take a retailer to court the burden of proof is on you as you are the one issuing court proceedings. Therefore you would need to prove it did not conform.

 

Retailers do defend and win. I have seen this happen on other forums. Sorry but the consumer needs to provide more than saying it should last x amount – that is not evidence. After 6 months it is assumed an item does conform to contract. A consumer could have damaged it or it could be fair wear – some components you would expect to wear out due to their nature.

 

And regarding this, you may still have to prove that it is actually faulty. All that section says is that any fault that exists is assumed to have existed since purchase. Whereas after the 6 month period that isn't true.

[redfox]

Do the magistrates court deal with this type of dispute?

[AmberLeaf]

There's no ' love ' guarantees. Unless you're a big fan of the 90s band, Damaged. Which I am not.

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2017 at 15:39 ----------

 

Do the magistrates court deal with this type of dispute?

 

I very much doubt it.

[Cyclone]

I should have said District Judge.

[AmberLeaf]

I should have said District Judge.

 

I wouldn't know that one.

[Itrytoplease]

My main point was - A few years ago everything came with a three year warrenty, if not longer, Is this being reduced to ONE so as, we fork out for the EXTENDED warrenty?

[cgksheff]

You paid for warranties in the purchase price.

In reality, you would have been better off without the warranty and the charges being taken off the purchase price.

 

The servicing of many warranties were sub-contracted in any case.

[Supertramp]

Why haven't mine failed in 3 or 4 years? My one gave up the ghost after 8 trouble free years.

 

Mine just broke and my dad bought it in 1997, it was a cheap Hotpoint one. Used every day first for a family of 7, and then we've had it from them since I moved out in 2012 for our family of 4.

 

We have their fridge bought in 1997 too that works perfectly. They still have a chest freezer, hob and dishwasher that still works from the same time and all work fine. Their extractor has just given up though.