£300 aluminium door-stop

[amcluesent]

Use the standard letter -

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Faulty goods and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

On [date of purchase] I bought a [description of purchase] from you for [insert price] which has stopped working.

The problem is [enter description of fault].

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) states that when a consumer buys goods from a trader they must be: as described; of a satisfactory quality; and fit for any purpose made known at the time of sale to the seller.

This legislation also states that the seller, not the manufacturer, is legally obliged to sort out a problem if the goods do not meet these requirements.

The law also says I have six years from the date of purchase to claim damages for faulty goods.

My goods are not [delete as appropriate - as described/fit for purpose/of satisfactory quality] and I wish to claim a [delete as appropriate - repair/replacement/refund] of my goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended.

Please respond to my complaint within 7 days from receipt of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

[your name]

 

[CJ1045]

[NOT PUBLISHED]

In this case there is a problem. The buyer needs to proove that the good s were faulty WHEN THEY WERE SOLD TO HIM which on this forum he has stated was not the case.

Please read the detailed Which guide to the SOGA:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act/

It seems to me, however, that this is all fairly irrelevant as the retailer involved is trying to resolve the problem anyway.

CJ

 

[CJ1045]

[NOT PUBLISHED]

In this case there is a problem. The buyer needs to proove that the good s were faulty WHEN THEY WERE SOLD TO HIM which on this forum he has stated was not the case.

Please read the detailed Which guide to the SOGA:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act/

It seems to me, however, that this is all fairly irrelevant as the retailer involved is trying to resolve the problem anyway.

CJ

 

[CJ1045]

[NOT PUBLISHED]

In this case there is a problem. The buyer needs to proove that the good s were faulty WHEN THEY WERE SOLD TO HIM which on this forum he has stated was not the case.

Please read the detailed Which guide to the SOGA:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act/

It seems to me, however, that this is all fairly irrelevant as the retailer involved is trying to resolve the problem anyway.

CJ

 

[BenLaw]

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) decrees that if a product - be it a DAC or a kettle - fails within six years of its purchase date, then it is "not fit for purpose".

Expiry of the manufacturer's warranty / guarantee is irrelevant because according to SOGA the retailer is resposible for the product that it sold - not the manufacturer.

SOGA allows the retailer one opportunity to repair the product; if this repair 'one-strike' fails, then the retailer must provide / supply the customer with a new replacement.

And, obviously, the customer pays now't :shame:

A lot of misinformation there. In particular, six years is the period for bringing a claim, whereas the law states that a product must be of satisfactory quality, judged by the standards of a reasonable person. So that will be product specific. I imagine a £300 dac would be expected to last for much longer than a year.

For real information, read the act, especially section 14: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

 

[nopiano]

Crumbs, MF, that's really bad luck. But as others have said, I'm sure the supplier will try to help. And if not, it wouldn't be crazy to send it back to California for fixing given its tiny size. Realistically, they might throw it away and just give you a replacement at cost or gratis. Good PR, even if bit of a nuisance.

They have a Facebook page, and these often elicit helpful replies if you are nice (which I'm sure you will be!).

https://www.facebook.com/HighResTech

Good luck.

I may be mistaken but I think US warranties are only 6 months or something silly like that.

AmigaNut

They often are, I agree, but my point here was to elicit a goodwill replacement regardless. Posting concens on FB is quite a good way if it is done with care, along the lines of ...'please help, I'm really disappointed...', as opposed to 'you $$**@@, your products are **@@%%".

However, I agree with the thrust of the "fit for purpose" arguments here. You'd expect it to last at least 3 to 5 years.

 

[CJ1045]

From the Which? guide on the Sale of Goods act:

Proving your claim for faulty goods
If your claim under the Sale of Goods Act ends up in court, you may have to prove that the fault was present when you bought the item and not, for example, something which was the result of normal wear and tear.

If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, or as described when it sold them.

For example, by showing that the problem was caused by an external factor such as accidental damage.
Expert's reports
Beyond six months, it's up to you to prove that the problem was there when you received the goods even if it has taken until now to come to light.

So, you may need to prove that the fault was not down to ordinary wear and tear or damage you caused, and that the product (or a component) should have lasted longer than it did.

To do this you may need an expert's report, for example, from an engineer or a mechanic.

Always try to keep the cost of any report proportionate to the value of the claim and, if you can, try to agree on an expert you and the seller both agree has the necessary expertise.

Regards

CJ

 

[SpursGator]

My advice would be to do what you are doing, but contact HRT directly to make them aware of the situation. Call them, email them, something.

I say this because I have returned many things to many retailers in both the UK and the US. Every single time I returned anything in the UK - even IN warranty - it was a big headache. Lots of conversations about EU law and various Acts and who was at fault etc.

In the US, I have never had a problem returning anything, at any time, for any reason. I was the customer and the customer is always right. I've brought things in YEARS out of warranty, with no receipt, and had them replaced on the spot. As a teenager in Florida, I once went to a big stereo shop and bought a really nice HK double-cassette deck. I then spent a month copying hundreds of tapes, then brought the machine back and said that I wanted to return it because it wasn't high end enough. Two minutes later I walked out with a full refund. (I was young and poor - I am not proud of this and look back with shame - but I did it).

As someone who has lived many years on both sides of the pond, I would just call HRT in California, tell them the machine is on the way from the retailer, and just beg for their help - tell them you can't afford another DAC and to break after 369 days doesn't seem right. I would be SHOCKED if it isn't made right.

I can name a few British retailers of which I have a high opinion, but frankly, the relentlessly horrible customer experience in shops is one of the worst things about day-to-day life here. 'Bad shopping' is hardly a fatal flaw for a country - at least for me - and I can share lots of things I did and did not like about America (the shopping, to no one's surprise I am sure, is an easy A-star). But shopping in Britain sucks and Lord help you if you have a problem.

 

[busb]

My advice would be to do what you are doing, but contact HRT directly to make them aware of the situation. Call them, email them, something.

I say this because I have returned many things to many retailers in both the UK and the US. Every single time I returned anything in the UK - even IN warranty - it was a big headache. Lots of conversations about EU law and various Acts and who was at fault etc.

In the US, I have never had a problem returning anything, at any time, for any reason. I was the customer and the customer is always right. I've brought things in YEARS out of warranty, with no receipt, and had them replaced on the spot. As a teenager in Florida, I once went to a big stereo shop and bought a really nice HK double-cassette deck. I then spent a month copying hundreds of tapes, then brought the machine back and said that I wanted to return it because it wasn't high end enough. Two minutes later I walked out with a full refund. (I was young and poor - I am not proud of this and look back with shame - but I did it).

As someone who has lived many years on both sides of the pond, I would just call HRT in California, tell them the machine is on the way from the retailer, and just beg for their help - tell them you can't afford another DAC and to break after 369 days doesn't seem right. I would be SHOCKED if it isn't made right.

I can name a few British retailers of which I have a high opinion, but frankly, the relentlessly horrible customer experience in shops is one of the worst things about day-to-day life here. 'Bad shopping' is hardly a fatal flaw for a country - at least for me - and I can share lots of things I did and did not like about America (the shopping, to no one's surprise I am sure, is an easy A-star). But shopping in Britain sucks and Lord help you if you have a problem.

Interesting post. It's not the fist time time I've heard that shopping in the USA is a somewhat better experience. I've generally been quite lucky. I bought a Rotel RCD-1072 that's still working fine. It was ex-demo & produced a scraping noise with certain discs. It was returned to Audio T who got it sorted quite quickly.

What gets my back up & has happened twice in the last 18months was being questioned if I was going to buy a product or not. The answer being not now, I ain't - both from fairly reputable dealers. I don't habitually go into shops as a time-waster!

 

[bigboss]

According to my brother-in-law who lives in the US, British consumers are lucky to be covered with Sale of Goods Act which protects you beyond the warranty period. In the US, you have no recourse if the product breaks down within a few days after warranty expires.

I returned my 18-month old Sony Vaio laptop (with a 1-year warranty) for a full refund to Amazon when the motherboard developed a fault. No questions asked. I only told them that the Sony Engineer over the phone thought the problem was with the motherboard.

 

[Phlegm]

I bought one of these and preferred it over the Arcam rPac I had. Cleaner, much improved sound for under £17.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MUSE-HiFi-PCM2704-USB-to-S-PDIF-Converter-DAC-Sound-Card-Black-Silver-/251243882058?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiFi_Amplifiers&hash=item3a7f4d664a

Worth a punt?

 

[6th.replicant]

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) decrees that if a product - be it a DAC or a kettle - fails within six years of its purchase date, then it is "not fit for purpose".

Expiry of the manufacturer's warranty / guarantee is irrelevant because according to SOGA the retailer is resposible for the product that it sold - not the manufacturer.

SOGA allows the retailer one opportunity to repair the product; if this repair 'one-strike' fails, then the retailer must provide / supply the customer with a new replacement.

And, obviously, the customer pays now't :shame:

A lot of misinformation there. In particular, six years is the period for bringing a claim, whereas the law states that a product must be of satisfactory quality, judged by the standards of a reasonable person. So that will be product specific.

...

It is information supplied by the late-Consumer Direct - closed as of 30.3.12 by the caring-and-sharing current government - and cuts through the ambiguity of "satisfactory quality" and "standards of a reasonable person" in relation to AV / electrical products.

FWIW, I've used the above info to claim successfully on five separate occasions re faulty products - two TVs, a DVD player, a dishwasher and a cordless phone system - all of which developed faults outside of the manufacturers' warranties but within the six-year period.

 

[6th.replicant]

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) decrees that if a product - be it a DAC or a kettle - fails within six years of its purchase date, then it is "not fit for purpose".

Not exactly. It depends on the product, and whether you would expect it to last for 6 years. You cannot apply the 6-year SOGA limit to spark plugs for example.

NSS

 

[jjbomber]

Firstly, for £300 a door stop should be a bit better than your normal 2x1 planed peice of wood. I woul;d suggest a blind test and get someone else to close the door. You should notice an improvement in the door's performance. If you are unsure, invite your wife into the room as you are about the close the door. She will say something like 'that door closed the best I've ever heard. Have you changed something?'

More seriously, I have also made a few claims under SOGA. The product has to be fit for purpose, there aren't specific timelines. However, the government example is that if a £20 kettle goes after two years, then that is fair enough, but a £600 TV should last for 6 years. Clearly your door-stop is well within time. Your contract is with the retailler; he has to repair it. It does not matter what the manufacturer says. You can also query this with Paypal as you made the purchase through them. If Paypal was paid by your credit card, you can also make a Chapter 75 claim against them. They will have a specialist department for these claims.

There is no need for all the doom and gloom outlook, even though it is very frustrating.

Finally, american bombs from the Vietnam war are still going off 40 years late in Laos, and kill about 300 children a year. Don't trust anything American made!,

 

[MajorFubar]

This is all useful info, and yes as it happens I did pay for it via a credit card through PayPal. A letter will be winging its way to him tomorrow along with the broken DAC and a copy of my PayPal receipt.

 

[nopiano]

Finally, american bombs from the Vietnam war are still going off 40 years late in Laos, and kill about 300 children a year. Don't trust anything American made!

So they are still working then?

 

[BenLaw]

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) decrees that if a product - be it a DAC or a kettle - fails within six years of its purchase date, then it is "not fit for purpose".

Expiry of the manufacturer's warranty / guarantee is irrelevant because according to SOGA the retailer is resposible for the product that it sold - not the manufacturer.

SOGA allows the retailer one opportunity to repair the product; if this repair 'one-strike' fails, then the retailer must provide / supply the customer with a new replacement.

And, obviously, the customer pays now't :shame:

A lot of misinformation there. In particular, six years is the period for bringing a claim, whereas the law states that a product must be of satisfactory quality, judged by the standards of a reasonable person. So that will be product specific.

...

It is information supplied by the late-Consumer Direct - closed as of 30.3.12 by the caring-and-sharing current government - and cuts through the ambiguity of "satisfactory quality" and "standards of a reasonable person" in relation to AV / electrical products.

FWIW, I've used the above info to claim successfully on five separate occasions re faulty products - two TVs, a DVD player, a dishwasher and a cordless phone system - all of which developed faults outside of the manufacturers' warranties but within the six-year period.

You're suggesting that all products are expected to work for six years. Yet in your next post you accept that is not the case and it is product specific. If the source you referred to really claimed that all products were expected to work for six years then it was wrong. I suspect however that it did not and that you have confused the period in which one can make a claim in contract law. I linked to the actual law for you or anyone else who is interested.

Re your fwiw, I didn't disagree that periods longer than warranty periods may well be reasonable as the time for which you would expect a product to function. But in law, for none of those items will there have been a blanket six year period.

Edit: just read down and seen bigblue's post, which is comprehensive and which I endorse.

 

[bigblue235]

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) decrees that if a product - be it a DAC or a kettle - fails within six years of its purchase date, then it is "not fit for purpose".

Expiry of the manufacturer's warranty / guarantee is irrelevant because according to SOGA the retailer is resposible for the product that it sold - not the manufacturer.

SOGA allows the retailer one opportunity to repair the product; if this repair 'one-strike' fails, then the retailer must provide / supply the customer with a new replacement.

And, obviously, the customer pays now't :shame:

A lot of misinformation there. In particular, six years is the period for bringing a claim, whereas the law states that a product must be of satisfactory quality, judged by the standards of a reasonable person. So that will be product specific.

...

It is information supplied by the late-Consumer Direct - closed as of 30.3.12 by the caring-and-sharing current government - and cuts through the ambiguity of "satisfactory quality" and "standards of a reasonable person" in relation to AV / electrical products.

FWIW, I've used the above info to claim successfully on five separate occasions re faulty products - two TVs, a DVD player, a dishwasher and a cordless phone system - all of which developed faults outside of the manufacturers' warranties but within the six-year period.

6th, Ben is correct. I'd be very surprised if Consumer Direct gave out that info as it's incorrect.

I'm wary of going into the details about Consumer Legislation, as these threads usually just end up with a lot of 'I read on the net that...' type comments, but...

-The six-year period isn't from SOGA, it's from the Limitation Act. It's for breach of contracts. It applies to the SOGA because a contract of sale is formed at point of purchase, and the terms of that purchase are covered by SOGA. So the goods have to meet the terms in SOGA for 6 years. Part of those terms is that the goods have to last a reasonable amount of time. So, whilst it means you can take action for 6 years, it doesn't mean you'll win. Things perish, wear out, run out. They don't have to last 6 years.

- Even if you could argue a product should have lasted 6 years, after 6 months you can be asked to demonstrate why they've failed to conform to contract. So if a product is more than 6 months old, there is nothing in SOGA which allows you to automatically demand compensation.

-There is no such thing as a 'one strike' rule. If a product fails repeatedly you can argue that you've lost confidence in it and its not fit for purpose. But goods can fairly be (and frequently are) repaired more than once.

-There is no obligation to provide the consumer with a new product/full refund, other than in the initial period of acceptance. Partial refunds can be offered, as can goods which are in a similar condition to the ones which have failed.

-There's no grey area around the EU regs. They were transposed into the SOGA about a decade ago and all relevant provisions apply in the UK. This still doesn't provide a 2-year warranty though. It doesn't apply to what we typically refer to as 'warranties' as...

- There is no legislation which makes manufacturers' warranties mandatory. What SOGA provides you with is statutory rights. What the EU regs provide, in countries who have it as their sole consumer legislation, is a 2 year period for these EU statutory rights. Not the same as a 2 year warranty, although some countries have voluntarily implemented a 2 year warranty.

- It's correct to say that the retailer is the organisation who must compensate the buyer (if compensation is deserved) as it's the retailer the contract is formed with. Retailers cannot say that 'it's out of their hands', but they can return items to the manufacturer for a proper evaluation/inspection. Consumers can, and should, deal directly with the manufacturer when it's prudent to do so.

Trading Standards are the people to turn to for SOGA stuff. The new(ish) SOGA hub has all the necessary info in a very consumer-friendly layout http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/

 

[Timbot]

I wouldn't tell them you've been using it as a doorstop...

 

[jjbomber]

Finally, american bombs from the Vietnam war are still going off 40 years late in Laos, and kill about 300 children a year. Don't trust anything American made!

So they are still working then?

Yep. Being dropped from 20,000 feet doesn't cause enough impact to set off the detonator, but a kid standing on it does. Work that one out! Similarly, I wouldn't want to put ny hi-fi on and the sound only come out after 40 years (unless it was One Direction).

 

[BigH]

You have upto 6 years to claim against retailer for faulty goods, however the emphasis on you to prove it is faulty after 1 year. Best bet is to write to the retailer claiming a repair/refund for goods not fit for purpose and see what happens. You could also contact Consumer Direct for advise.

 

[6th.replicant]

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) decrees that if a product - be it a DAC or a kettle - fails within six years of its purchase date, then it is "not fit for purpose".

Expiry of the manufacturer's warranty / guarantee is irrelevant because according to SOGA the retailer is resposible for the product that it sold - not the manufacturer.

SOGA allows the retailer one opportunity to repair the product; if this repair 'one-strike' fails, then the retailer must provide / supply the customer with a new replacement.

And, obviously, the customer pays now't :shame:

A lot of misinformation there. In particular, six years is the period for bringing a claim, whereas the law states that a product must be of satisfactory quality, judged by the standards of a reasonable person. So that will be product specific.

...

It is information supplied by the late-Consumer Direct - closed as of 30.3.12 by the caring-and-sharing current government - and cuts through the ambiguity of "satisfactory quality" and "standards of a reasonable person" in relation to AV / electrical products.

FWIW, I've used the above info to claim successfully on five separate occasions re faulty products - two TVs, a DVD player, a dishwasher and a cordless phone system - all of which developed faults outside of the manufacturers' warranties but within the six-year period.

You're suggesting that all products are expected to work for six years.

If that were the csae, I would've written: "... if any product fails ..."

If the source you referred to really claimed that all products were expected to work for six years then it was wrong. I suspect however that it did not and that you have confused the period in which one can make a claim in contract law. I linked to the actual law for you or anyone else who is interested.

Re your fwiw, I didn't disagree that periods longer than warranty periods may well be reasonable as the time for which you would expect a product to function. But in law, for none of those items will there have been a blanket six year period.

...

Intrigued by your opinions. For clarity, the info / advice I was given by Consumer Direct via phone, on five occasions, was as follows [ie, I made notes]:

1) The retailer, not the manufacturer, is liable if the latter's warranty has expired

2) If the product has failed within six years, it is, therefore, 'not fit for purpose'

3) The retailer must be allowed an opportunity to repair, albeit once only

4) If the repair does not work, then a new replacement must be provided

5) Cite Sale of Goods Act and mention advice / info was sourced from Consumer Direct

If the above is wrong and / or misinterpreted by me, then I'm curious as to how I secured the following [without costs]: TV 1 - plasma panel replaced and upgraded; TV 2 - main circuit board replaced and upgraded; DVD player - full refund, after the repair failed; dishwasher - replaced (new), after the repair failed; phone system - replaced (new), without an attempted repair.

In turn, it seems the products' retailers - Amazon, Comet, John Lewis and Play.com - all, in effect, agreed with, or at least yielded to, Consumer Direct's advice.

But if Consumer Direct's advice was, as you state, "wrong" and / or I was "confused", etc, then my five wins were actually a consequence of my hitherto unrealised accumen for telephone-based negotiation, enhanced by Obama-esque charisma, persuasiveness and charm - umm, I wish.

Anyhow, if I have another gizmo expire within six years of purchase, I think I'll apply the same logic / arguments - "confused" or otherwise - and take solace from my wee examples of precedent

 

[bigboss]

So, would you expect a spark plug in your car to last 6 years? Or tyres? Why can't we apply Sale of Goods Act if the tyres wear out within 6 years? All your examples are fine, and you would expect them to last beyond the warranty period. But there is a misunderstanding regarding 6 years. Can you find any documentation related to this? I can't find any.

 

[bigblue235]

6th, since Ben hasn't replied and I'm awake and bored, your answers are in bold

1) The retailer, not the manufacturer, is liable if the latter's warranty has expired.

The retailer is always liable. The manufacturer has to honour any additional warranty they've provided.

2) If the product has failed within six years, it is, therefore, 'not fit for purpose'

That's wrong. I think you're getting mixed up with the 'Burden of Proof' period, but that's six months. In that period, the goods are presumed to have been sold as inherently faulty, and the retailer must prove otherwise or provide a remedy. But it's only ever in this 6 month period that this applies. There's just no way any product is automatically deemed as 'Not fit for purpose' if it fails within 6 years.

A product could be deemed 'Not fit for purpose' at any age if it genuinely doesn't fit its expected purpose, or a purpose that you've told the salesperson you would be using it for, but that's a whole diffferent kettle of fish!

3) The retailer must be allowed an opportunity to repair, albeit once only

4) If the repair does not work, then a new replacement must be provided

That's wrong, too. Goods can be, and often are, repaired more than once. The customer can request a remedy of his choosing (repair/replace/refund) but the retailer can provide another remedy if the customer's choice is disproportionately costly to the others. There's no such thing as a 'one strike rule'. If a repair fails repeatedly, you may have a case for replacement/refund, but it doesn't have to be a new item or a full refund (even after attempts at repair) as the retailer is allowed to deduct your usage from the compensation.

5) Cite Sale of Goods Act and mention advice / info was sourced from Consumer Direct

Fair enough, it's always good to suggest you've got your info from a genuine source. But it can go against you if you don't know the ins and outs of it. The common internet belief that you just say "Sale of Goods Act" and the retailer rolls over is misguided.

If the above is wrong and / or misinterpreted by me, then I'm curious as to how I secured the following [without costs]: TV 1 - plasma panel replaced and upgraded; TV 2 - main circuit board replaced and upgraded; DVD player - full refund, after the repair failed; dishwasher - replaced (new), after the repair failed; phone system - replaced (new), without an attempted repair.

Dunno. Got me. Good luck? Hopeless staff? Good customer service? Goodwill gesture? Maybe they just wanted rid of you?

Nah, in all seriousness, I don't see anything unusual in those. Just what you'd expect, really. Repairs are often an initial attempt to save money on a replacement, but if a repair fails the supplier will often write it off as it's likely uneconomical to try again. Very common. JL had one attempt at fixing my TV then wrote it off without any input from me.

I've dealt with way more than 5 (hundred...!) cases like this, and sometimes you just have to realise that the results aren't because of legislation or your own persuasiveness. There's anecdotes like this all over the net, and people think if someone got something then everyone must be entitled to it. But, sadly, it's just not the case. It's just the way it went at the time. I've often given people more than they were entitled to, simply because I could do it at no cost.

And, as I'm really bored, here's yer proof.

[quote="SOGA Hub"]The law says that a customer can approach you with a claim about an item they purchased from you for up to six years from the date of sale (five years after discovery of the problem in Scotland).

This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six years from the date of purchase! It is the time limit for the customer to make a claim about an item. During this period, you are legally required to deal with a customer who claims that their item does not conform to contract (is faulty ) and you must decide what would be the reasonable amount of time to expect the goods to last. A customer cannot hold you responsible for fair wear and tear .

The six-year period is not the same as a guarantee, but it does mean that even where the guarantee or warranty supplied with the product has ended, your customer may still have legal rights.[/quote]

 

[BenLaw]

I don't wish to appear to be hiding behind bigblue, but I saw 6th's reply in the middle of the night and felt I would need a computer to reply properly. Even if I had done, bigblue's response is much better than mine could have been and I defer to his expertise (of which I have none). I'd only add that the 'anecdotes as proof you're right' demonstrate faulty logic, as they are equally consistent with a proper application of the law as it actually is (you've not told us anything that I can see that doesn't fit with the law as bigblue outlines it) or, as bigblue says, resolutions beyond what the law required for a reason you are unaware of.