Gagaryn - I understand that. But does that mean therefore that, if I buy an iPhone and it breaks 18 months later, it is my consumer right to have it repaired by the retailer I bought it from (e.g.: Apple store)?

    MediumRoastSteam The “problem” is that the first EU directive (1999/44) did not impose a minimum duration of the warranty. That directive was replaced in 2021 by the directive 2019/771 that imposes a 24 months minimum warranty, however by then the UK had left the EU… so we are left with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which does not specify a minimum duration explicitly, but leaves it open (although the CRA does specify that within the first 6 months any fault is deemed to have been present at purchase, therefore the manufacturer/retailer has a much harder time escaping liability).

    The 2019 EU directive (active from 2021) has been implemented in different ways within the various countries, and enforcement remains a country-level issue - I can tell you that for example getting a refund in Italy, particularly from a small retailer, remains a difficult matter even if the law explicitly allows it…

      DavecUK No, not particularly - though I’m sure they are not an exception in this regard…

      My understanding of warranties and having experience of dealing with matters via UK legislation, is that there is not a defined period of recourse. If you buy an item in the UK you have recourse under the sale of goods Act 1979 whereby goods have to

      • as described
      • of satisfactory quality
      • fit for purpose

      The phrase that was commonly used was that goods had to be of “merchantable quality”. So when considering how long a warranty is don’t be fooled by what the retailer tells you ie 1 year, 2 years etc. The question a judge would ask if it went to court is one of reasonableness. So ask yourself would I expect the goods to last that amount of time? So 30 days is not worth the paper its written on and even 1, 2 or 3 years can be challenged. Your recourse in law will always be with the retailer and not the manufacturer. Retailers will try to stick to their one, two year etc, but take my word for it you can challenge it if you do it the right way. I have managed to do so on more than one occasion. You cannot ask for a refund if you just change your mind and whether you are entitled to a refund or repair on faulty items will depend on how long you have had it. There are some extra provisions under the distance selling regulations if you change your mind within a set time. Don’t forget also that if you pay with a credit card and the total value is over £100 you will have recourse under the consumer credit Act whereby your credit card company are legally bound to act on your behalf where there is a problem. This will apply even if you only paid a deposit, provided the item total value is over 100. In summary warranties can be challenged no matter what their length are, provided it is deemed ‘reasonable’

      I’ve had nothing but superb support from Decent so I’m sorry to hear about your experience. I’m in Austraia so I’m not qualified to comment on UK law however it sounds like the product was purchased from Decent directly, being in Hong Kong so my guess would be that it won’t be covered by UK law.

      Please persist with Decent’s support. You may need to explain potitely why their recommendation is unacceptable but most people seem to walk away happy enough. I hope you do too.

      owner.

      simonc Sorry about the issues you are having. Hope you can sort it out soon.

      DavecUK After all it covers the machine

      I was thinking the same until one of the largest home and business PC makers told me in writing that the warranty is voided if the native OS installed on their machine is replaced with something else!

      The simple point to come out of this, is if you buy premium products then you have the right to expect premium backup. I think this is an excellent reason never to buy this sort of equipment from overseas and even though Decent choose not to support this forum, I am certain that if I was their CEO for the sake of goodwill I would sort it out, without issue

        dfk41 I would like to think you would get good customer support whatever the value of the item. If the company is based abroad I would also always be a little hesitant at purchasing unless I was familiar with them as can be tricky to rectify matters from a jurisdiction point of view.

        I nearly purchased a Decent a few months ago, but was put off by a story of someone who purchased directly from Decent and had a similar issue.

        I would say we are spoilt in the UK with our consumer rights compared to the rest of the world, but I think it’s a bare minimum to expect a year out of most products.

          Del_UK I would say we are spoilt in the UK with our consumer rights compared to the rest of the world

          I think it is not so much that we are spoilt in the UK with our consumer rights, as Europe has also quite high standards. The main difference here is that doing something about it is much easier and effective i.e. small claims court, ombudsman, CAB etc

          I’ve had my Decent for nearly 4 years. Always had very personal service on any rare problem during that period.

          Recently I overlooked replacing a thimble filter during a regular clean & got all sorts of rubbish into the works. By arrangement with one of their support staff I returned the Machine to Hong Kong for a complete overhaul. I was only charged for the journey round trip. All the work was done FOC. The Machine came back within 10 days like new.

          9 days later

          So it’s a no. they fail to acknowledge that this is a basic design flaw in their product with a lot of complaints about it in Basecamp. Not interested in helping and have the cheek to say they still look forward to me buying a DE1 in the future.

          No chance.

          I think there’s a lot of potentially misleading comments in this thread. The first thing to be clear on, especially in relation to the term “warranty” in EU directives is that it doesn’t mean quite the same thing as “guarantee” in UK law.

          As a consumer, you will usually have both. But in the UK, the “guarantee” comes from the manufacturer, does not have to be a set period, or even a set minimum period but “usually” is 12 months. I have some goods here where it’s two months, but for those two months, is extremely comprehensive. And with those products if you can’t work out faults by two months, there’s a issue with your perception.

          Consumer rights law gives you rights, that a lot of people mistakenly refer to as their guarantee, but actually aren’t. And, the usually apply to the retailer, though if you bought direct from the manufacturer, that company is probably both manufacturer and retailer. Rarely does a retailer offer a guarantee, but you would normally have those rights under consumer law - this is the “satisfactory quality”, “fit for purpose”, etc that has been inherited from the 1979 Sale of Goods Act, right through (with some modification and a lot of extension) to current law.

          THere was a post earlier talking about the 6 month rule, and that’s correct - sort of. Those consumer rights cover you for faults inherent at time of purchase". Huh?, I hear some say. If a fault existed, when you bought the item from the retailer", you’re covered. And for up to 7 years (6, IIRC, in Scotland, where the law is similar but not identical) BUT …. the question is proving it existed when you bought.

          That £existing" fault DOES NOT have to be obvious, or even detectable. It could be a faulty component that fails over time but takes 2 or 3 years to be noticable. It could even be design flaw, etc. The law just says it must be “inherent” at time of purchase. So on those scale springs, if the spring is either defective and fails quickly, or not as specified, or even is what is specified but the spec is wrong, then you are covered by consumer rights …. if you can PROVE the fault was inherent when you bought.

          So the 6 month rule?

          If something fails within the first six months, it is ASSUMED the fault is inherent at time of purchase …. unless the supplier can prove otherwise.

          If something fails after 6 months, the fault is ASSUMED to not be “inherent”, and therefore not subject to legal claim, unless the consumer can prove it was.

          In other words, what chaged at the 6 month point is where the burden of proof falls. For the irst 6 months, it falls on the retailer. After that, it falls on the consumer.

          What will constitute “proof”? That it ultimately up to the court in a given case, but usually a mix of accepted conventions for how long things shuld last, and very likeky, a report from an independent expert.

          Bear in mind, these laws cover pretty much anything a consumer buys from a retailer and, sure, periods of time aren’t specified, but how long do you think they should last? Remember, the same laws apply if you bought a brand new car, or a banana or cheese sandwich! Personally, I expect my coffee machine to last longer than a banana. Yet …. same laws.

          One final thought. The work “warranty” is often used, especially in EU law, to refer to a term inserted into a contract, not how long something should last.

          Those EU directives (mostly) are binding directives on EU member states (including the pre-Brexit UK) that aren’t generally directly enforceable but rather, require each ember state to implement local laws that comply with the stanards in the directive. Thus, when the EU said £two year minimum" the UK didn’t have to change anything here on time periods because it was already 7 years (6 in Scotland) long before that.

          And that’s now these consumer laws (from the ’79 SoGA to current Consumer Rights Act) work - they (by statute, that retailers cannot avoid or negate or opt out of) embed terms in ALL consumer contracts. They are, if you like, a “warranty” in the legal definition of the term, but are NOT what consumers mean by guarantee.

          The effect can be very similar, but they are totally different.

          As should be evident who anybody that made it this far in this wall of text, it is VERY easy to get confused between guarantee and warranty, and between a claim against manufacturer guarantee, or consumer rights law against the retailer. It causes huge confusion.

          And the vast range of different options, like a manufacturer doesn’t have to offer a guarantee but if they do, and the consumer knew of and relied on it when buying, then iy is enforceable. Retailers are also subject to consumer rights but they can be expensive to prove as those expert reports might cst more than the goods that failed you, and you are not definitely going to get that cost back, especially if the report doesn’t back your belief in the cause being “inherent”. Do you want to pay maybe £150 fr a report, over a £100 scale, when you might lose anyway? Win, and you’ll probably get the report cost back (paid for by the retailer) but it isn’t definite as it’s the court’s decision.

          In the end, the consumer with defective goods has to be prepared to put in the time, stress, hassle and costs of taking it to (Small Claims, usually) Court if you want to enforce against a recalcitrant retailer. Who, even after a judgement in you favour, STILL might not pay up. Then, you open another whole can of worms trying to enforce.

          So, there’s always a decision to make between what your rights are, theoretically, under the respective laws, and whether it’s pragmatic to try to enforce them, if it comes to a stand-off needing a court to resolve.

            CoffeePhilE The other issue here is that Decent is not UK or EU-based, so having them acknowledge any of those rights (with or without a court) is another kettle of fish altogether, never mind enforcing any action.

            Conclusion - buyer beware.

              CoyoteOldMan Conclusion - buyer beware.

              Exactly.

              Most people don’t want ‘rights’ that they can enforce by law, because in most cases normal people won’t want to take a company to court and it wouldn’t be worth their while even if they won. Instead ,they want do deal with honest companies that take pride in their products, assume responsibility for problems and remember that their customers are also human beings, just like those who own/operate the companies and make up the company policy. Unfortunately, more often than not companies don’t behave that way. When a company charges premium prices for supposedly premium products, it is even more disappointing.

                Doram Most people don’t want ‘rights’ that they can enforce by law, because in most cases normal people won’t want to take a company to court and it wouldn’t be worth their while even if they won. Instead ,they want do deal with honest companies that take pride in their products, assume responsibility for problems and remember that their customers are also human beings, just like those who own/operate the companies and make up the company policy. Unfortunately, more often than not companies don’t behave that way. When a company charges premium prices for supposedly premium products, it is even more disappointing.

                I completely agree with that. Personally, I’m pretty careful who I buy from, unless the value is small enough to just write it off if things go wrong, even if it means getting a price that is not as competitive as some others. Nobody in their right mind wants to mess with courts. That said, if the value is such that it fits within the scope of the Small Claims track, it is neither an expensive nor difficult process, just a bit of a PITA. But, even when careful, there are times when things go wrong and all other attempts to sort it out (and court should always be the last resort), it’s either that or just give in and give up.