Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I have got extended warranties from Comet for most of my stuff and to be honest I am completly happy as they suit me ie: my pc is on more or less permanently and the extended warranty covers me for everything and they end up having to replace my pc with a brand new one every few years .seen as I know nothing at all about pc's I like the peace of mind of knowing I can just phone up and it's fixed .I think I well get my moneys worth . or am I missing something ?
But if you've paid 500 to 1000 for a computer, should you really have to pay extra for peace of mind? The argument is that your statutory rights already should cover you, but instead, you are made to pay more for something that the seller should provide anyway.
I got a Dyson washing-machine for £1000. It came with a 2 yrs manufacturers warranty. Then the seller wanted to charge me another £300 for 5 yrs additional guarantee. But it wasn't. It was for 3 yrs on top of the 2 yrs. And all that money for a piece of equipment which, frankly, if it gave me grief before 5 yrs, I would be yelling at Dyson anyway, seeing how much I paid for it and I would expect them to come and sort out FOC, and damn right too! lol.
Other example: I have an Epson R200 printer. If I use non Epson cartridges, I invalidate the warranty. But non-Epson cartridges only cost me £1 instead of the £15-£20 a brand one would cost. I accept that if I get 1 year use of my printer, I will have more than recouped my costs, and will buy a new printer. But if I bought Epson cartridges and my printer bailed out after 1 year, I would expect Epson to sort it out even though it's out of warranty!
I think we have had "built-in obsolescence" drummed in to us as a buzzword for so long that we forget that it doesn't have to be so.
*gets off high horse, exits left, pursued by a bear*
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
[COLOR=olive][SIZE=1]If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.
Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.
Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
------------
Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get
On the assumption that the legal argument put forward by Bankfodder has a sound foundation (which I'm sure it does) then I am almost as annoyed about these warranties as I am about bank charges. The difference is that I very, very rarely purchase extended warranties and haven't done so for at least ten years.
BF argues that the consumer's statutory rights are strong enough to obviate the need for an extended warranty. His argument seems sound although it becomse less strong as time passes. In other words it would be harder to justify a claim after five years than after one year and one day.
I have always thought that these warranties were dodgy and there has been plenty of press comment about their pricing and how difficult they can be to claim against. However, BF's argument opens up a whole new vista of consumer anger. He seems to be saying that consumers are not just being misled into purchasing policies they don't need but also they are being deterred from exercising their statutory rights by the common assumption that these end when the manufacturer's ordinary warranty ends.
When a salesman is trying to persuade you to purchase a warranty he is not only trying to get you to buy something you don't need but also, in effect, telling you that you have no rights unless the policy is purchased. I wonder how many microwave ovens have end up in muncipal rubbish dumps because of this con?
I see the point that your making and as far as my white goods go then I will not be getting the extended warranties any more BUT as far as my pc I think that I would withdraw to much if it broke and I never had the cover it's covered even for a virus ,I'm sure most of you could sort that out but I would have to rely on some 'cowboy' to fix mine
only problem I'v had is .......one time my kid ( 2yrs at time ) stuck something inside and wrecked it I did think it was funny when they originally said they wasn't replacing it as it was ' wilfull vandalism ' LOL I said ok I'l see you in court and I'l bring the vandal to try and talk to the judge , that is the only problem I have had other then that
it goes by how much pc cost and it is 4 yrs old ( time for a new pc off them ) .I THINK it was £160 but to be honest I can't remember ...it might of been £260
Of course there are benefits with an Extended Warranty. You are buying an insurance policy. You get peace of mind. No-quibble repairs or replacement at any time of the guarantee. Very nice.
However, firstly many people cannot afford to pay another, say 15%, on top of the price of their new TV or washing machine or computer. There are many pople who can barely afford to buy these items in the first place.
When people just buy the item without the extended warranty for whatever reason, most of them do not know their statutory Right. If they are one of the unlucky ones whose new TV does have a serious repair problem after the standard guarantee has run out they will generally just put it down to bad luck on their part. They will either pay out the huge bill for the repair or they will reluctantly buy a replacement after having decided never to buy [Sony] or [Hotpoint] etc again.
Who benefits, here? Well the Supplier benefits as he does not have to bother paying for the repair of the item. The Manufacturer benefits as he does not have to improve the general quality of his production because there is no pressure from the supplier to stop these defects. Both of these parties benefit because they are selling more goods. The extended warranty company benfits because they weren't faced with an insurance pay-out.
The only person who doesn't benefit is the Consumer as he had to pay out in quick succession for a second new item. Yet all the time he had the Right under Consumer law to get his TV repaired or replaced.
What would have happened if he had phoned the supplier and said "You know that £500 TV which you sold me 2 years ago, it's broken." They would have said "It' out of guarantee. Did you have an extended warranty? No? Sorry, nothing we can do. get an extended warranty next time."
And of course, the Consumer probably will. So he has lost a TV, been forced to buy another one and also pay another 15% on top for an extended warranty - when all the time, the supplier had a statutory duty to repair the item - and if he wanted, to complain to the manufacturer.
He phoned the supplier - and was not given the true story. Even when he goes to the shop for a new TV, if he asks "What if it goes wrong after the first year?" He won't be told "Well it is very possible that we will still pay for the repair because we are obliged to do so by statute." He will be told "If you want to protect yourself after the first year, then you will have to pay 15% on top."
And unfortunately, we have lost sight of the Consumer Right so completely, that he will he told this by shop staff who really believe it because this is all they know and even they buy extended warranties when they buy their own goods.
Is there any use for Extended Warranties? Well not everyone wants - or is capable of - hassling big companies in order to assert their Right.
Also, there are lots of grey areas. How long does the Statutory Right last? It is not clear and it depends on the circumstances.
Extended warranties is really big business. But for Retailers it has a significant double benefit. not only do they get a profit from the Warranty which they sell, but they also benefit from a significant saving as they do not have to bear the cost of repairing the defective goods which they sell! What an amazing gift to the retail industry
But why should it be the consumer who has to buy the insurance? It actually should be the retailer. It is the retailer who by law is at risk of having to repair defective goods.
They have pulled off a truly amazing stunt.
They are saying to the consumer, "We are at risk if your TV breaks down, but we want you to pay for an insurance policy which protects us from that risk - and if you don't then the risk will pass to you."
This is simply pure genius.
Did it happen accidentally or was it planned that way?
I would love to know.
Please don't pm me about specific questions unless you have posted and it has not been dealt with or unless the matter is confidential. Please include a link to the post you want me to look at. If you have received a defence, contact me.
Advice & opinions of BankFodder, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
I've sat and thought about what your saying Bankfodder and fully understand what your saying ... I never knew half of what you said and believed after 12 months that was it as far as the shops/ manufactorers responsibility.... I was talking about what works for me .I would always fight for someones rights .. so I hope I never came across as 'I'm alright Jack ' as that wasn't what was meant and yes I now realise that the shops are kidding people .. feel a bit guilty now
Not at all. People work for their money and it up to them how they want to spend it and how they want to enjoy the benefits it brings.
I am only concerned that Extended Warranties are sold dishonestly and that where there are no extended warranties then Retailers aren't honest. Instead they deprive their customers of their statutory rights and many of the people who are affected by this can't really afford it.
Like bank charges, it affects the poorer, more vulnerable people in society.
If I had loads of money, I would like to buy my goods with full warranties so that I could spend my time doing the things which I like doing and which make life worthwhile. I don't have that money so I have to spend a disproportionate time hassling big companies which should know better.
If the whole business of statutory Right and extended warranties was fully transparent so that people could make educated, informed choices about what they preferred to do with their money - then there would be no issue.
But it's not like that, is it?
Please don't pm me about specific questions unless you have posted and it has not been dealt with or unless the matter is confidential. Please include a link to the post you want me to look at. If you have received a defence, contact me.
Advice & opinions of BankFodder, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
The only person who doesn't benefit is the Consumer as he had to pay out in quick succession for a second new item.
And the planet (not a person, but you know what I mean).
I have a big problem with built-in obsolescence/cheap goods which cost more to fix than to replace, from an environment point of view. Maybe not a conversation in this thread, but an issue nonetheless, IMO.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Thanks but why buy one when this one is replaced for a brand new one if it breaks accidently
oops that was in answer to seminole
Sorry I had to rush out to the pub so I only had time to post the link. The point I was making is that if the warranty cost roughly the same as the replacement cost of the new computer then you're not really reducing your risk. Obviously this depends on the spec of the original PC and what use you could put the money saved on the extended warranty to in the meantime.
As BF points out however, it is completely reasonable to go for a warranty for peace of mind.
OH i see what you mean now .. I was trying to say the way it works out is I have a pc that is used to death and they get called out quite a few times over the 4 years , even for small faults. Then at the end of aprox 4 yrs I get a brand new PC for the price of the warranty , usually a better spec / model as they come down in price. So yes I pay a lot for the warranty but the way I look at it is I get all those sometimes little repairs done and the money I have paid gets me a brand new PC after 4 yrs .. After 4 yrs I would need a new pc anyway or should I say want one but I don't have to pay the full amount , only what the warranty cost me .. hope that makes sense
You can use extended warranties to your advantage. I have tried this so far in PC WORDS and DIXONS. I am pretty sure it would be the same throughout DSG.
If you are making a purchase and trying to hagle for a better price / discount - I have always been able to get money off the main item I am buying, by purchasing the extended waranty.
The next step after you have paid for your purchase and warranty, is to phone up immediatley and cancel the waranty (but keeping the main item).
If you buy an extended warranty which lasts for more than a year and costs more than £20, you can cancel it within 45 days and obtain a full refund of the price paid (if you have not made a claim ).
The last paragraph is from the Consumer Direct Government website.
As BF points out however, it is completely reasonable to go for a warranty for peace of mind.
It's interesting you saying that.
I bought a dishwasher a few years back, for £200. 1 yr warranty. At the end of yr, I got a letter offering me 1 extra yr guarantee, for about £20. It seemed reasonable, as you say, for peace of mind.
The thing is, when the d/washer broke, the cost of repairs meant they gave me a new d/washer, which then had 1 yr manufacturer warranty. And so on, and so forth. So far, I've had 3 brand new d/washers off them, and a couple of repairs, which would have cost me more than the additional warranty.
But now, the cost of the warranty is climbing, last yr, £50, this year, it wd be nearly £60. So we calculated that if we bought a new d/washer, we'd save that, which then get offset against the cost of the new one, + next year's warranty will be cheaper than if we kept the old one... And we have a newer and more efficient machine too...
In the end, it is a case of striking the right balance. In the case of computers, the price goes down so quickly that I wouldn't pay for additional warranty, especially when they get invalidated the moment you take the cover off them (even though they all come with additional slots for adding ethernet cards, PCI, soundcards etc...)
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Happy with extended warranty
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by BankFodder
so I only had time to post the link. The point I was making is that if the warranty cost roughly the same as the replacement cost of the new computer then you're not really reducing your risk. Obviously this depends on the spec of the original PC and what use you could put the money saved on the extended warranty to in the meantime. 
