On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:47:47 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



The EU only issues Directives in relation to minimum or harmonised
standards to facilitate trade or social conditions. National governments
enact legislation based on them.

Yes. And the UK have enacted legislation - but mentioning the European regs
may push the right button.

Hmm.. not convinced. Since we are talking about Comet here rather
than sentient beings.


Regulations that could have a bearing on this are in two areas:

- For first six months after purchase, the onus is on the seller to prove
that the product was manufactured properly etc. In practice, they would
find that difficult and defer to the customer. This would no longer apply
in this case since the product is older than that.

- Statute of limitations. The Directive requires member state governments
to enact legislation such that there is at least two years. There has
been much confusion over this. In Germany, for example, there was
previously no specific legislation in this consumer area and consumer
groups took it to mean that manufacturers must provide at least 2 years
warranty. They have lobbied successfully to the point that this is what
manufacturers are now doing, for the most part to avoid the conflict.

However, in the UK we have had and continue to have 6 years statute of
limitations. If you read through the legislation, cases and words of
wisdom from TS departments, they will tell you that in the UK it is done on
reasonableness. The manufacturer warranty is simply a convenience for the
retailer and customer whereby the manufacturer owns the problem for
typically a year. It doesn't replace statute, however.

In terms of reasonableness, had the product been a £100 special from Makro,
then a year's warranty and not expecting much after that is probably fair.
However, Bosch presents itself as a premium brand (and generally is) and
has a price point to reflect that. Therefore a very good case could be
made that a failure within two years is not reasonable in terms of
expecting the customer to pick up the tab for the repair. It's quite
likely to be £60 for the call out plus twice that for bits.

Personally, I would push the retailer heavily on it. Of course, it may be
a distress situation - i.e. the freezer needs to be fixed now and not in
the geological time scales of the judicial process. Therefore, I would
discuss with TS department and the credit card company (you did use a
credit card so that the card company is on the hook too?) It may be that
it is acceptable to pay for the repair and recover the cost afterwards.

But best get the right form of words in advance and persuade the retailer that
you won't be a pushover. Not paying is easier than getting it back later.

Of course. Then it's a case of rapidly escalating to senior level in
their organisation and being a squeaky wheel for people whose time is
expensive and who can tell the minions to vary the stated policy.





--

..andy