Multiple Warranty repairs

[SwingingSimian]

Hi all

 

I bought a pair of motorcycle boots online with a 12 month warranty from the maker i.e. not the retailer. The rear section of both boots failed within months. The company first tried to pass this off as my fault, then tried to charge me return postage, which I refuted successfully but only after a lengthy to and fro about the sales of goods act.

 

A few months later they failed again in exactly the same way, this time just outside of the warranty. I managed to persuade them to send me the spare parts and I would fit them myself. On doing so I noticed that some other parts of the boot were mis-sized i.e. left boot had a section which was larger than the right boot. Suspecting that this was the real cause of the issue I contacted the retailer and they agreed to sort them out.

 

My boots arrived back about 4 months ago. Last week I noticed exactly the same fault has happened again. The retailer refuses to accept any responsibility, and in fact seems to have stopped replying to my emails. I'm pretty sure that they are responsible given the contract of sale was with the retailer, and that they are obliged to perform a repair on items that have failed within a unreasonable period.

 

Due to the nature of the ongoing problem I requested a full refund or a credit note, to save them any more return/repair expense, they refused. I am now considering pursuing a 'small claim online' to recoup my costs.

 

Does anybody know where they/I stand legally wrt responsibility/obligations and the sales of goods act?

 

Thanks

 

Nath

[perplexity]

You appear to be on good ground.

 

Part 5A of the Sale of Goods Act speaks for itself; a buyer is eventually entitled to insist that enough is enough, and a maker's warranty would not replace the retailer's responsibility. If you check the terms and conditions, the fact of the matter is usually that a warranty specifically declares itself as an addition to the buyer's statutory rights, and a term that would rather diminish the duty of a retailer would not be valid.

 

In so far as a retailer misleads a buyer with regard to "the consumer’s rights or the risks he may face" that could rather be prosecuted as a strict liability criminal offence, because of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

In my experience, at least, the threat of a criminal prosecution is a good deal more effective than the threat of a civil action, just as soon as the seller gets around to catching up with the reality of the possibility.

[locutus]

So the manufacturer IS the retailer in this case? The SOGA is definitely your friend here. If you get no joy, and as long as it's easy to prove the issue is due to poor manufacturing, the courts will find for you no problem.

 

If they cost over £100 and you paid via Visa card, you do also have their protection. Talk to your card issuer if this is the case as it may be a simple case of answering some questions and your card issuer refunds you, and then recalls the funds from the retailer .

[SwingingSimian]

So the manufacturer IS the retailer in this case?

 

No, the retailer and manufacturer are independent. The warranty is from the manufacturer. But my reasoning is that each repair should have been the retailers responsibility, at least according to the sales of goods act. As they did not last a reasonable time i.e. just months in each case.

 

I think I paid by mastercard, do they offer the same protection as visa?

 

Thanks very much for the help btw.

 

Nath

[locutus]

Talk to your card issuer and see.

 

You are correct that the SOGA applies, and it's the retailers responsability.

[perplexity]

What's the use of "should have been"?

 

A repair performed because of a manufacturer's warranty is therfore the responsibility of the manufacturer. A properly conceived warranty is enforceable, an addition to the retailer's responsibility, not an alternative.

 

If you want to have a go at a person apart form the retailer, who performs a repair or provides a replacement, the Supply of Goods and Services Act applies, whereby the terms are largely equivalent to the Sale of Goods Act with regard to fitness for purpose and a consumer's rights.

 

P.S.

 

Otherwise, it seems to me that your claim for a full refund is likely to fail because the retailer was not so much as given the chance to repair or replace. It is not the fault of the retailer if the manufacturer makes a botch of a repair and the Sale of Goods Act grants no particular right to a full refund anyway.

 

For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

[SOGA, s.48C(3)] Edited July 4, 2011 by perplexity
P.S.

[SwingingSimian]

Hi

 

Just to finish this thread off, I talked to my credit card company who said this was not a standard claim. So they asked me to speak to trading standards to find out how to claim, and then get back to them with the details. Trading standards directed me to 'consumer direct' who advised me that they were definitely liable under:

 

1 Sales of Goods Act 1979, as the boots are 'Not of satisfactory quality', this includes any repairs.

 

2 Supplies of Goods and Services Act 1982, as the repairs to the boots show a 'lack of reasonable care and skill'.

 

They also informed me that my credit company were liable under:

 

3 Consumer Credit Act, section 75, meaning they are equally liable.

 

I mailed the retailer with this info directly. He immediately re-engaged in email communication, apparently spoke to his solicitor who advised he to offer me 50% off my next pair. I told him to go jump, as consumer direct told me I could claim for a full refund and my credit company would pay for, and pursue the claim for me. He immediately offered me a full cash refund.

 

It's shocking how little retailers know or want to know about the SOGA and good customer service. This is their job!?

 

Thanks very much for your help.

 

Nath

[perplexity]

I told him to go jump, as consumer direct told me I could claim for a full refund and my credit company would pay for, and pursue the claim for me. He immediately offered me a full cash refund.

 

That made me laugh.

 

You could claim a damage of million pounds, but it doesn't mean that you are going to get it. To be entitled to claim is not to be entitled to receive.

 

s.48C(3) of the Sale of Goods Act is perfectly clear to the effect that the solicitors recommendation of 50% off a next pair of boots is a legitimate offer.

 

For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

From there on a reimbursement is a negotiable issue, not a foregone conclusion..

 

 

It's shocking how little retailers know or want to know about the SOGA and good customer service. This is their job!?

 

 

Indeed, my advice is always to refer oneself to the actual terms of the legislation, not to rely upon a solicitor, nor to resort to Consumer Direct.

[locutus]

Hi

 

Just to finish this thread off, I talked to my credit card company who said this was not a standard claim. So they asked me to speak to trading standards to find out how to claim, and then get back to them with the details. Trading standards directed me to 'consumer direct' who advised me that they were definitely liable under:

 

1 Sales of Goods Act 1979, as the boots are 'Not of satisfactory quality', this includes any repairs.

 

2 Supplies of Goods and Services Act 1982, as the repairs to the boots show a 'lack of reasonable care and skill'.

 

They also informed me that my credit company were liable under:

 

3 Consumer Credit Act, section 75, meaning they are equally liable.

 

I mailed the retailer with this info directly. He immediately re-engaged in email communication, apparently spoke to his solicitor who advised he to offer me 50% off my next pair. I told him to go jump, as consumer direct told me I could claim for a full refund and my credit company would pay for, and pursue the claim for me. He immediately offered me a full cash refund.

 

It's shocking how little retailers know or want to know about the SOGA and good customer service. This is their job!?

 

Thanks very much for your help.

 

Nath

Thank you for the update. It really is shocking that companies make you jump through these hoops to get what your legal rights says your entitled to. These legal rights are a MINIMUM so why don't stores at least meet that standard?

 

Glad you got a satisfactory result... it would've been nice for them to give you a little something as a goodwill offer, but clearly they are a company to steer clear of if you want to get any sort of customer service!

 

The one thing missing from this thread is for you to name and shame them. If anyone looks for a review of them, and comes across this thread, they'll at least be forewarned about quality and aftercare.

[MrShed]

I would have to say that I am surprised (but pleased for you) at the full refund - the SOGA does entitle you to redress, but not neccessarily a full refund - especially in this scenario where you did in fact have extended use of the item.

[perplexity]

These legal rights are a MINIMUM so why don't stores at least meet that standard?

 

It is not quite so simple.

 

A claim like this depends upon "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." [SOGA s.14(2A)]

 

A buyer owns no particular right to be his own judge and jury of how to interpret that. The seller is entitled to his own view of it and could argue that a pair of boots was indeed fit for purpose, a bargain at the price but eventually abused, so all he did was try to help, in good faith.