Sale of Goods - change in the law?

[gyzmo]

Most should hopefully be familiar with SoGA etc and the general law principle of "He who accuses must prove". As a consumer however, if you have faulty goods or make a claim as such, then within the first six months, you don't have to prove it - it is for the seller to prove otherwise. After 6 months this is reversed, and the general principle applies.

But consider this: for most consumers (who it is widely ackowledged are generally ignorant of their rights and of the law in general, and are also disadvantaged when compared to businesses), proving that the Plasma TV you bought for for £2000 did not stop working because of something you done can be rather difficult. Or what of my mobile phone that started suddenly trying to delete all its own applications for no good reason (telephonicide?) - how the hell could I have done that? Given it depression? Yet it is down to you to prove as such after 6 months.

Now fo some thing you may not be bothered. If my 7 month old toothbrush (no I don't have one hat old - I'm making a point!) suddenly hadall its bristles falling out, I won't really bothered - just a couple of quid for another one.

But for a lot of stuff, you would be bothered about it breakin down, and it is these things generally that you would expect to last a damned sight longer than 6 months.

The situation is that, if something does go wrong after 6 months, it is down to you to prove that the goods were not as described, of reasonable durability etc - conditions imposed into contracts by legislation. So off you go to the seller (who more than likely will tell you to go to the manufactuer or say nothing to do with them) and then you either huff and puff or get a report, and possibly end up in court trying to prove your case. Like I said, costs, time and the complexity of going to court is something that not a lot of people can do or even know how to.

Also, consider this. You buy something and it goes kaput after 5 months. The shop duly gives you a new replacement item. 2 months later, your new item also goes kaput. Guess who it is down to o prove the fault? YOU! If you had bought this new, you wouldn't have to. But because it is exchanged, you do. There you go.

So I think the law should be changed a bit. Where goods are supplied, the current situation should remain BUT:

1. After 6 months, a seller must still accept the goods as they do before the 6 months UNLESS they have good reason not to do so (for example, the mobile phone is covered in dents and scratches and it appears to have been dropped loads of times and generally abused. Or, if the person said it was bought 5 years ago - probably general fair wear and tear).

2. Where goods are exchanged as a remedy, then the 6 month rule starts again as it would if it were a newly bought item.

The benefit is that consumers wil not have to fight as much to get their rights and shops (particularly large retail stores) will find it harder to fob people off.

What do you think? Is this too burdensome on businesses (maybe just make it applicable to large businesses)? Do consumers need this level of protection? Would it be too much in their favour? Is it a smashing idea that should be enacted immediately?

Constructive comments (slagging the idea off or otherwise) welcome - I just might start a petition!

[Bookworm]

Well, that is one topic we discussed before, isn't it? The fact that the 6 months rule starts from date of first purchase and not from date of replacement is just absurd. In the case we discussed, 2 laptops, the 1st one dies at 11 months, gets replaced by a new one, different make, different specs, when that one gets a problem after 3 months, it is down to me that to prove it is faulty, because in law, the purchase was made 14 months ago, when it doesn't take a genius to work out that a laptop which fails after 3 months has to be inherently faulty (unless dropped in the full sink or slung from Beachy Head!).

In the scenario you describe above, however, there is a slightly different thing, which in itself has, I think, a huge amount of importance. You said:

The situation is that, if something does go wrong after 6 months, it is down to you to prove that the goods were not as described, of reasonable durability etc - conditions imposed into contracts by legislation. So off you go to the seller (who more than likely will tell you to go to the manufactuer or say nothing to do with them)

IMO, they don't do that until the 12 months have expired (well, barring the replacement issue already mentioned), thereby reinforcing the impression in the public perception that the 1 yr warranty is the be all and end all of your statutory rights. Let's face it, only the most gullible would fall for that if they were told this after 6 months, but 1 year is just enough to make people swallow it, and so...

I do believe the law doesn't go far enough to protect the consumer, that's for sure.

[JB_]

The issue is not so much inadequacies in the law but lack of understanding.

For instance... you have the right to claim against an inherent fault for up to six years (certain conditions accepted).

WE all know that, but then again I suspect many people on this forum have studied the legislation in depth. The poor salesman/manager feeling the pointy end of our... ehh... pointy-ended wrath is unlikely to have more than 30 minutes dedicated to the law as part of their induction. In many shops, especially small independents, the sum total of legal knowledge might be based on last week's Watchdog. Combine this with a natural reticence for a business to accept liability and you have the current situation.

Changing the law is all well and good, provided all those people bother to learn it. If they do not bother with the old law, why bother with the new law? The consumers who know the law are more likely to fight anyway. Theconsumers who do not know the law are the ones who back down in the face of stubborn retailers. Old law, new law, will this necessarily be addressing the problem?

Perhaps a DTI or even government mandated scheme to ensure minimal levels of statutory awareness could be more beneficial? There are basic levels of hygiene required in food preparation, why not a basic legal certificate for managers or senior sales?

The time-scale argument hinges around interpretation of what the legislation seeks to accomplish. I am too tired to hit the Law Commission reports or Hanzzzard but this might give a good insight into the debate.

If you think the purpose of the legislation is to make sure the item you get will work for at least six months then yes, it should restart with each replacement. If you think the purpose is to make sure you get a working item for six months from date of delivery, then it works fine the way it is.

While I would prefer the former, I consider the latter to be (and I dislike saying this) more practical. If the six month period kept restarting then I know, without any question or hesitation, that expensive items would suddenly and mysteriously start breaking down every six months for the duration of the six years. The business implications are not to be underestimated. The law is about making things work. SOGA is about fitting consumer rights into a system without breaking the system, keeping it working. Restarting the six months would leave the system open to abuse.

For all the people in the world who benefit from protections, there are as many who will take the opportunity in their favour. In a previous life I worked somewhere that provided Warranty Services for a major brand printer. Every week we would see a few printers with CLEARLY user-created problems from deliberate damage. We knew, our techs were good and very experienced and we had a number of clues to look for as well. The expectation? "Well, the warranty runs out next week and it suddenly... 'stopped' working. We want a new printer, but this model is obsolete so give us the new version. With a spare set of cart's for our 'trouble'."

Interestingly enough, in that scenario, when we replaced a unit the replacement would automatically get a 3 month extension if the original 12 month was due to run out, similar to the idea that has been suggested. Every subsequent replacement would get another 3 months. We saw a few cases where people attempted to abuse this.

In conclusion, I think the issue is not with the law. The issue is that the people it seeks to protect and the people it seeks to bind, both remain largely blind to it. The other few paragraphs I typed between the opening sentence and this conclusion are pretty much "post-midnight waffle". This lack of awareness is the real issue that needs to be addressed, more than legislative changes.

[Bookworm]

You see, that's where I disagree. I think by an large, people are honest and whilst there is a small minority who will try and abuse the system, the majority wouldn't.

Things are already stacked against the consumer. They're British, and have been taught not to complain, not to make a fuss. They're afraid of going against a big company, which has money and lawyers. The law itself should be clear enough, but let's face it, how many people understand those notices that say "this is in additon to your statutory rights" in tiny little script below the great big shops' own signs? Add a sales assistant/manager who either by ignorance or bullishness refuses to do what he's supposed to, and there you have it.

I agree that the lack of awareness of the masses is the main issue, but I don't think it should deter from looking at the issue of the legislation. The burden of proof itself has to be a huge deterrent for so many people, the moment you get told "get an independent engineer's report", a lot of people will just give up. For an item which might be 7 months old, it's just IMO a very unfair burden to place on the consumer.

[gyzmo]

The lack of knowledge is a hige and much debated problem, and to be honest, one I do not think that will be resolved. Consumer protection has been, and probably (though I hope not) always will be a reactionary measure.

The other main issue is the unequal bargaining power between consumer and retailer. Even an informed consumer will have difficulty when faced with a corporation that will not budge. That is also well recognised and debated, and partly addressed in terms of seemingly draconian legislation (The weights and Measures Act 1889 (or thereabouts) was described as the most vexatious piece of legislation ever inflicted on British businesses. Now it is hardly enforced by some authorities. Most legislation drawn up now contemplates this imbalance, hence quite a few rights for consumers. But do they go far enough? They're along the right lines, but are they focussing on the right areas?