Sale of goods act BRIGHTHOUSE - just a quickie...

[Lefty]

Question:

Would a "reasonable" person expect a Phillips Whirlpool Frost Free Fridge/Freezer to last longer than 26 months?

Hi folks

Can anyone point me in the direction of specific legislation concerning "durability" of goods in respect of the Sale of Goods act?

I am trying to help someone with a Brighthouse problem (as usual!!!)

The fridge/freezer is subject to a three year HIRE PURCHASE agreement (with around 7 months still to run), is NOT covered by Brighthouse's EXTORTIONATE optional service cover, has been used correctly (ie - been used as a fridge and not as a rally car!) and has now broken down... well, not completely broken down... it just keeps frosting up until the doors won't shut... (supposed to be "frost free" by the way...)

Brighthouse have REFUSED to assist with any kind of repair - giving their usual response of "you should have taken out optional service cover", and insist that since the manufacter's 12 month warranty is no longer in force they have no responsibilty.

Now then, I KNOW that this is not the case - particulary seeing as this is a HIRE PURCHASE agreement as opposed to a credit or cash sale agreement. I know that a customer cannot be expected to continue HIRING (with a option to purchase) a faulty product - possibly a DANGEROUSLY faulty product...

So, if there's anyone out there in CAG world who can assist with yet ANOTHER case of Brighthouse insisting consumer law doesn't apply to them, please help.

I've trawled the web today looking for specifics on "durability" - can't seem to find what I need. I'm sure someone posted a guide once - a guide that gives examples of how long a "reasonable" person would expect different products to last... TVs, cookers, fridges, etc...


Cheers
Lefty

[dw190]

I replaced my 18 years old Hotpoint fridge two years ago. Only realised when I was destroying the instruction book.

The freezer I purchases at the same time is still going strong and as they are fitted you can't even see any dating.

Below is a response from Consumer Direct that relates to an item that failed after 11.5 months but only found the receipt at 13 months.

Under the SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED) all goods supplied by a trader to a consumer must be of a satisfactory quality, fit for their purpose, and as described. If this is not the case, then you may have the right to reject the goods in question and ask for a refund. The law states that you only have a short time in which to reject goods for a full refund, and once 'acceptance' is deemed to have taken place, your rights will be limited in the first instance to claiming a repair, or possibly a replacement or a partial refund.

These rights last for up to 6 years, depending on how long it is reasonable to expect the goods in question to last. Bearing in mind the length of time you have had the (Electrical Item), you may be expected to contribute towards the costs of any repairs.


Seperate to your above 'statutory rights' are any rights granted under the guarantee. Whether the guarantee may have been considered valid can be debated either way - the trader may argue that by not returning the Electrical Item within the guarantee period, and with a valid receipt, you did not fulfil the requirements of the guarantee. You would have to check the terms & conditions of the guarantee to confirm what information it requires from you.


At this stage, you should send the trader a recorded delivery letter, outlining everything to date, and making 'time of the essence' to resolve the matter within a set period of time (i.e. 14 days). Make it very clear what you are claiming from the trader, and that you are aware of your statutory rights. It is also worth retaining copies of everything sent, for your records

The highlights are to disguise the actual item.

Personally I would expect a Fridge/Freezer be fault free for at least five years.

[Lefty]

Thanks DW190

That's very helpful.

Not enough people understand that manufacturers' warranties and the Sale of Goods act are NOT the same thing. In some ways, the regulation 12 month manufacturers' warranty, although very useful, has done more harm than good...

Here's a few words of wisdom from Alan Wilson, a senior law lecturer at the University of East London and barrister who specialises in consumer law..


"...Manufacturers' guarantees, or warranties as they are sometimes called, were introduced to enhance companies' reputations for supplying quality goods. They are provided free of charge at the point of sale and come with a promise to repair or replace goods if they go wrong in the first 12 months.

But manufacturer's guarantees do not replace your basic shopping rights outlined in the Sale of Goods Act, which allow you to claim against the retailer if you buy faulty goods. In fact, the manufacturer is legally obliged to draw your attention to the legal rights under the act.

Consumers are generally better off pursuing Sale of Goods Act rights against the retailer, as these are stronger than those contained in a manufacturer's guarantee and last for up to six years from the date of purchase. The goods you buy must be reasonably durable and of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose.

Big-ticket electrical appliances such as iPods, washing machines and dishwashers should be expected to last for several years. You should be able to claim compensation from the retailer if they break down within that period as long as they have been used normally. Your rights do not come to an end after 12 months simply because the manufacturer's guarantee has expired..."



Cheers
Lefty

[blitz]

As the company have offered an optional service cover, they obviously believe the product will last this long (otherwise they wouldn't offer such a facility for this period of time. This is business and not a charity, you wouldn't set out to lose money now would you).

You should also not be expected to buy a new fridge/freezer every 2 years especially with the make and cost of it.

If companys want to offer you something to trick you into paying more money for the same rights, I don't see why you can't use the same thing to prove that they expect the item to last this long. Its why I will generally cap electronic products at 3 years, as its easy to prove a retailer expects it to last this long.

[dw190]

Originally Posted by blitz

As the company have offered an optional service cover, they obviously believe the product will last this long (otherwise they wouldn't offer such a facility for this period of time. This is business and not a charity, you wouldn't set out to lose money now would you).

You should also not be expected to buy a new fridge/freezer every 2 years especially with the make and cost of it.

If companys want to offer you something to trick you into paying more money for the same rights, I don't see why you can't use the same thing to prove that they expect the item to last this long. Its why I will generally cap electronic products at 3 years, as its easy to prove a retailer expects it to last this long.

Whenever I get offered extended warranties my quetion to them is why would I need a warranty dont you expect it to last so long? the answer is usually oh yes its just that we have to offer it. Their own words then become your guarantee.

[Lefty]

Yep. You're both absolutely right. Thanks again.

So.....

...What should we recommend?

In the first instance, I have advised that the agreement be placed "in dispute" and no further payments be made in respect of it. (This is particularly important, I believe, especially given Brighthouse's well known bully-boy repossession policy... (Mind you, the customer is well aware of her rights regarding Hire Purchase, and understands NO repossession can be made without a court order as she has paid well over a third of the instalments.)

(for anyone not "in-the-know" with Brighthouse, I would recommend a quick read through of these couple of threads...)

Steven4064 - v - BrightHouse***WON***

BrightHouse Urgent Advice needed!!

Brighthouse problems, advice please.

Thing is, folks, I do need just a little bit of help with this one. I could do with your advice on the best way to proceed.


Cheers
Lefty

[118:8]

If the finance is Hire Purchase then it's not the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) that applies here it is the 'Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973'.

I think a fridge freezer should last 6+ years (the price you paid for it is a reflection of the value as well) maybe I'm wrong that's just my guess.

With Hire Purchase you are right they cannot take it back without a court order if you have paid 1/3 in England. After you paid half you should be able to hand it back.

Never stop the payments even if it's faulty sort it out with the trader first of all. If you stop payments they will have an excuse to hold you as being in breach of contract and it might affect your credit at a later date!

Unfortunatley with hire purchase the burden of proof is with the consumer to prove the goods are not durable.

Once proved it them becomes the obligation of the retailer to repair/replace/or reimburse compensation to value of repair/replacement.

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by 118:8

If the finance is Hire Purchase then it's not the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) that applies here it is the 'Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973'.

I think a fridge freezer should last 6+ years (the price you paid for it is a reflection of the value as well) maybe I'm wrong that's just my guess.

With Hire Purchase you are right they cannot take it back without a court order if you have paid 1/3 in England. After you paid half you should be able to hand it back.

Never stop the payments even if it's faulty sort it out with the trader first of all. If you stop payments they will have an excuse to hold you as being in breach of contract and it might affect your credit at a later date!

Unfortunatley with hire purchase the burden of proof is with the consumer to prove the goods are not durable.

Once proved it them becomes the obligation of the retailer to repair/replace/or reimburse compensation to value of repair/replacement.

Thanks 118 (didn't you used to be 192?)

Now that's got me thinking... A quick "google" of "Hire Purchase, Supply of Goods act" came up with...

Unsatisfactory goods

If hire-purchase goods are misdescribed or faulty, you have a direct cause of action against the hire-purchase company to the same extent as if the company had actually sold you the goods (Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973). Consequently, you may be entitled to reject the goods and/or claim compensation from the hire-purchase company.

If you wish to reject the goods you must notify the hire-purchase company (and/or the dealer/shop with whom you negotiated the deal) immediately you discover the problem.

The easiest way for you to recover compensation from the hire-purchase company is to withhold an appropriate sum from the repayments (in the case of faulty goods, this will be the cost of repair).

All very interesting, but as Brighthouse supply goods on a Hire Purchase/Conditional Sale agreement, I always thought the "good old" Sale of Goods act applied - as, ultimately, the customer is HIRING a product with the intention/option to PURCHASE at the end of it...

Oh, and as for the credit score thing... the reason most people shop at Brighthouse is because they can't get credit anywhere else... so that would be the last of their problems!



Cheers
Lefty

[118:8]

lol okay lefty thanks never realised that was why people shopped at brighthouse! Have to remember that.

No im new here never been a 192

Hire Purchase = Supply of goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
Conditional Finance = Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

Always import to double check exactly what type of finance.

The implied terms of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 are the same as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) but the remedies are different.

Usually you can only claim for compensation (damages in Scotland) to the value or repair or replacement! I say usually but no harm in trying to push for replacement or refund!

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by 118:8

No im new here never been a 192

LOL right back at ya! That was just my lame attempt at a little humour... 118 (new directory enquiries) 192 (original directory enquiries.... Oh well...

Seriously, thanks for the input. I am now having to admit I am somewhat confused regarding SALE of Goods act, SUPPLY of Goods act, HIRE PURCHASE and CONDITIONAL SALE....

but...

...BUT, I think the underling point is, as you have agreed, a fridge freezer should last longer than 26 months and, somewhere within the two acts, the law is on the side of the consumer?

Cheers
Lefty

[Lefty]

Oh well, after a few weeks waiting for the store manager to "come up with a solution" (ha ha) this letter will be winding its way to Caversham Finance via RECORDED DELIVERY tomorrow...

(Anyone fancy giving it a quick check over? Maybe suggest any changes?)



Caversham Finance Ltd (Trading as BRIGHTHOUSE)
Chiltern House
Marsack Street
Caversham
Reading
RG4 5AP

DATE

(Recorded Delivery)


Ref : W/POOL 60cm F/FREE F/F SI WH7720SIL

(Original agreement number – XXXXXXXXXX – with “optional” service cover)
(Updated agreement number – XXXXXXXXXX – with “optional” service cover removed)

Dear Sir or Madam

The above item was purchased new under a HIRE PURCHASE agreement with CAVERSHAM FINANCE (trading as BRIGHTHOUSE) on 5th February 2005. The agreement was for 156 weeks. The cash price of the item (at the time of sale) was £457.30. (APR of 29.9% made a total cost (not including service cover) of £658.32.) The item was purchased from the Northfield, Birmingham branch, and the agreement still has 19 weeks to run.

In January 2006 the agreement was updated to reflect removal of “optional” service cover.

On 27th August 2007 we notified Brighthouse (Northfield) that the item had ceased to function and requested a repair. (The item constantly “freezes” up resulting in giant blocks of ice in the freezer section – very odd for a “frost free” freezer! This fault occurs constantly, regardless of any temperature settings made.) The item has always been used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, so we can only assume this is a fault in design or manufacture. We also believe this fault to be potentially dangerous and have stopped using the item.

Brighthouse (Northfield) refused to offer a repair, stating that as the fridge/freezer was out of the initial manufacturer’s warranty and, as no “optional” service cover exists on the agreement, any repair would have to be paid for by us. This was unacceptable and, after waiting more than two weeks for the store manager to “find a solution” (which, it would seem, was simply to leave the company) we decided to refer the matter to your customer services at head office instead. After telephoning no less than 5 times over a period of 2 days (and each time being assured a regional manager would call us back) no return call was forthcoming. This is, quite simply, appalling service and hardly the way to treat long-standing customers for over ten years.

We would respectfully remind you that manufacturer’s warranties (and, indeed, any extended warranties) are IN ADDITION to consumer’s STATUATORY RIGHTS. These rights are very clear and, in the case of a HIRE PURCHASE agreement, refer to THE SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) ACT 1973.

In particular:

1- Implied term about quality

(1) In section 14 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (implied terms about quality or fitness) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
“(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,

(b) appearance and finish,

(c) freedom from minor defects,

(d) safety, and

(e) durability.

A freely available guide (based on consumer groups and manufacturer’s websites) suggests a “good quality” fridge/freezer should have a life expectancy (durability factor) of around ten – eighteen years. It can, therefore, be deduced from these figures that a “reasonable” person would expect a “good quality” fridge/freezer to last at least seven years and would certainly not expect it to cease to function after only two and a half years. Of course, the original price and quality of the fridge/freezer should be taken into account, and at £457.30 (2005 price) this would certainly indicates an “up-market” quality product.

What we require:

Confirmation (in writing and within 14 days) that CAVERSHAM FINANCE (trading as BRIGHTHOUSE) will facilitate a satisfactory repair to the above item, or supply a replacement item of comparable age and specification in full working order. If neither solution is practical, then a realistic partial refund would be the only recourse.

Regretfully, if we do not hear from you within 14 days, or if you fail to respond positively to our requests, we will have no alternative than to persue the matter through the small claims court.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully



Many thanks!

Lefty

[gyzmo]

Sorry, but to clarify things you should be looking at the supply of goods and services act.

In terms of durability, there are no hard rules - it is a matter of fact for the court to decide. The 6 years is how long you have to make a claim - a product does not necessarily have to last that long (and there is nothing to stop one expecting a product to last longer than 6 years).

[Lefty]

Thanks for the reply, Gyzmo. Always appreciated.

I have actually established earlier on in the thread that it is the SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) ACT 1973 as opposed to the SALE OF GOODS ACT that applies in this case. The sample letter in my previous post refers to it.

Clearly there ARE no hard facts concerning durability, other than what a REASONABLE PERSON would consider satisfactory. And I'm sure there is nobody (reasonable or not) who believes a fridge/freezer should be replaced every two years or so.

At the end of the day, the customer simply wants the fridge repaired. She is not insisting (or expecting) any kind of full refund. I don't think that is unreasonable, do you?

Cheers
Lefty

[gyzmo]

Apologies - I overlooked the hire purchase point (hence my reference to the other Act), depsite it being in nice big capital letters! As to the rest, is was merely to clarify - there are some people who think that the Limitation Act means that goods shoudl last 6 years. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here.

apologies again for my oversight (dissertation really getting to me!)

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by gyzmo