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.