Amazon

Amazon are typically brilliant with returns. I bought some Whisky from them once Aberlour A’bunadh. Different batch numbers have very different flavours, and I ordered a specific batch number but was sent another, so I got onto their customer service and was sent another one which was still a completely incorrect batch number. Got onto them again to point out it was still not what I ordered and I was told to just keep it and they would raise the issue as there was clearly a problem in the warehouse - I’m guessing they just lumped all of the different batches in together. Works out well as I missed out on a batch that was out of stock everywhere and lucked out on getting it from amazon. Also had a kindle I stood on and they replaced it for free.

…..however, if you buy from a third party you may as well buy on ebay. Expect about as much after-care as you’d get from a guy down the pub selling things that fell off the back of a truck.

The Trade Descriptions Act only actually does what it says on the ‘tin’ … provides legislation about descriptions, and remedies for misdescriptions.

The legislation covering your rights as a consumer when buying goods was, historically, provided (in the UK) by the Sale of Goods Act, which dates back to the 19th Century, and was most recently overhauled in a major way by the 1979 version of the SoGA. But it has then been added to by several other bits of law, most notably by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, more commonly referred to as the Distance Selling Regs, or DSR. This was the UK implementation of, in those days, an EU directive.

Most of this has effectively been ’codified’into the newer Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Nor is the 12-month period strictly accurate. It’s more complicated than that because it depends on where/how you bought, and if you’re returning something, why you’re returning it and how quickly.

Most manufacturers offer a 12-month guarantee, but they’re not obliged to, and some offer considerably more than that. But as a consumer, your first port of call for problems is always the business you bought from (usually a retailer but could even be the manufacturer). because that’s who you have a contract with. Unless you bought direct from manufacturer, you don’t directly have a contract with them. However, IF they offer a warranty, and you knew of it when you bought and relied on it at that time, then it can be enforced.

But mostly, the contract is with the retailer. If you bought online, or ia some other “distance” method (maybe, mail-order catalogue) then you have 14 days, starting when you receive the goods, to simply change your mind, and send them back. There are some exclusions, and some restrictions, but generally, you get a full refund (but you usually pay for return shipping). That applies even when the goods are not faulty, and you aren’t even required to give a reason.

Then, there is a 30-day period (in the legislation, not because Amazon say so) during which you can return goods that “do not conform to contract” (e.g. are faulty in some way) for a full refund. This is known as rescission. After that 30-day period, the initial situation is that the supplier can offer repair, replacement or even a partial refund, though you can’t insist on a given option especially if it is unreasonably difficult or expensive. Furher options exist if any such replacement, for instance, is also defective, so a retailer cannot keep replacing an item again, and again.

But at that stage, we’re talking about “faulty” goods, or more technically, goods that do not conform to contract. The next issue is WHY they don’t conform to contract. For the first 6 months, faulty goods will be presumed (by the legislation) to have been faulty when supplied (i.e. the fault is “inherent”) unless the retailer can prove otherwise. That’s when the repair/replacement bit kicks in.

But after 6 months, the legal presumption is that the goods were NOT faulty when supplied … unless the buyer can prove they were. That may end up requiring an inspection/report by a third-party expert. You, the buyer, have to pay for that, though if it supports your assertion that the goods were “inherently” faulty (i.e. when you bought them) you can usually get the seller to refund you the cost of the report as well.

Finally, all the above applies for up to 7 years from purchase (in England and Wales, Scotland IIRC is slightly different as to when the clock starts ticking, and is for 6 years).

Bear in mind, everything I said above is based on some pretty broad generalisations and there are variety of complexities in detail. For instance, I’m referring to goods, and services are different. Also, the 7 years refers to the periofd under which you can sue for breach of contract, but exactly how long goods should last depends on the nature of the goods, and terms like “reasonable period” are littered in the legislation. But it makes sense when you think about it - a car and a banana are both “goods” but it’s not reasonable to expect a banana to last several years. You would also probably be justified in expecting a £30 t-shirt from a quality brand to last longer than a £1.50 t-shirt from a street market. And so on.

But in short, the 12-month thing is illusory, in relation to retailers. Manufacturers can offer that, and be held to it in the situation I mentioned above. Retailers can offer 12-months if they wish, but aren’t onbliged to. If they do, you can hold them to it. These sorts of optional guaranties are distinct from your legal rights. But retailers are bound to the rights I outlined (very roughly) above, whether they like it or not, provided you bought as a consumer (not another business) because they are your consumer rights, embedded in legislation, and they are (depending on the nature of the goods, and the fault) for potentially much more than 12 months.

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt - I AM NOT A LAWYER. This post is comment/opinion, by some bloke on the internet, and should not be construed as legal advice. If anyone wants legal advice, my only advice is to consult an actual lawyer.

dfk41

Can you precis the differences please David

Adrianmsmith Can you precis the differences please David

They’re very different in purpose. And besides, while technically the Trade Descriptions Act is still in force, MOST of it’s provisions were repealed in 2008 when the UK introduced a broader EU regulation covering the same ground, and more. So with pretty rare exceptions, forget the Trade Descriptions Act.

That said, the original purpose of the Trade Descriptions Act was what the title said - making sure descriptions were accurate.

Suppose you see a car advertised for sale, as a “Ford Escort, 1.6 litre, 30,000 miles, VGC”. You buy it, and it turns out the engine is only a 1.3 litre. That is an example of where there is a Trade Descriptions Act breach.

But what most consumers care about is not ONLY the specifics of how accurate the description is (though that’s important too), but about whether the car (or whatever the porduct is) is generally free from major faults, i.e. does a wheel fall off, or the engine seize, three weeks or 3 months after you buy.

By the TDA, you’re not covered if the engine seizes after buying, as long as the engine was actually 1.6 litre. The engine just must be “as described”, and not much more. Also, there are even limits as to how some “descriptions” are interpreted. Exactly what is the difference, and what can you expect as a result, between “good condition”, “very good condition” and “as new”, for instance. What about a description in the advert saying “best one you’ll find”? Some descriptions, especially that last one, are regarded by the law as “mere puff”, and are unenforceable anyway.

What most people generally care about when buying something is that it’s of a reasonably good quality, doesn’t develop severe faults (or stop working altogether) over a “reasonable” period of time. None of that is covered by the TDA. This is where general consumer rights come in, like the often-quoted “reasonable quality”, “fit for purpose” and, yes, “as described”. It’s also where the ability to buy something online (or by phone, mail-order etc) have specific protectons, like being able (for a brief period) to just get something, decide you don’t like it (for whatever reason, or no reason at all) and send it back.

There have been several bits of legislation that cover that, most notably the Sale of Goods Act, with the most recent version being 1979, but even that was amended by numerous changes, and in effect added to by separate laws that covered similar ground, like the Distance Selling Regs.

The whole lot, essentially was “codified” in 2015, by introducing the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which effectively replaced several older laws with one new one (the CRA 2015) that covered what used to be the Sale of Goods Act, Distance Selling Regs, and a couple of others. The exact provisions changed a bit here and there, but the vast bulk of what used to be provided by several different laws are now all provided by that one Act, and it is by far the one most important to (UK) consumers in making sure they have recourse if something they’ve bought proves to not live up to reasonable expectations about quality duraility, functionality, etc.

TL / DR …. if you’re concerned about problems with something you’ve bought, it’s VERY unlikely to be about Trade Descriptions and if you have legal protectiuon, it’s VERY likely to be in the CRA 2015.

Oh, and given all the if’s, but’s and except-for’s in laws, even my first lengthy post was very much a precis, believe it or not. I’ve glossed over a hell of a lot. Like …. I kept saying “reasonable” this, or “reasonable” that. How, in a law, do you define “reasonable” when it can apply in vastly different situations, like buying a car, or a banana? That question alone could justify an essay. Maybe a PhD thesis. :D

CoffeePhilE I purchased a Beko washing machine, the drum fell off the spider in 18 months and there was a load clanking as the machine tried to run with the drum moving massively.

I went back to Beko and they couldn’t give a rats arse as the warranty was only 1 year…they though it was quite reasonable that it failed after 18 months. I got absolutely no recompense. Beko saved, I dunno just under £300…great corporate decision…as I have never purchased another Beko product again in my life and told everyone I know to avoid the brand.

It’s also why I will buy an ASKO steel Seal if I have have to purchase another washing machine.

There’s a couple of things in there, Dave. Did you buy direct from Beko, or via high street / online (or mail order, etc)?

Unless you bought direct from Beko, the primary point of complaint (as I’m sure you know) is the seller, not the manufacturer. If you did buy direct from Beko, then they are both seller and manufacturer, in which case, the warranty is the least important aspect, and the important bit is your consumer rights.

If you did buy retail, then while the Beko warranty might be 12 months (which means their liability has ended by 12 mnths and 5 minutes, but the consumer rights don’t have that hard limit.

One often misunderstood point about manufacturer warranty (or guarantee) is that they aren’t obliged to offer one, but if they do, the provisions can be pretty much whatever they want. And so can the limitations. A company I buy shirts (and the occasional suit) from offer (or at least, used to) a pretty much unconditional 2 month guarantee. They went as far as to say that if your dog chews it, yes, you’re covered. Why? Because it was a markting tool. They wanted people to trust enough to order and try the goods, so the guarantee was pretty much unconditional. If people abused that, sooner or later, they’d just decline to continue to supply that customer but, they told me, not many customers did abuse it. But tthe company have zero control over consumer rights.

This also brings up a complicated issue - is it warranty, or guarantee? Because most consumers tend to use those terms interchangably, but legally, while they overlap in implication, they are very different instruments.

Finally, your point about never buying another of their products and advising others not to, as well. Yup, been there, done that. The PR aspects of not supporting your products are inevitable for companies but it highlights a rather uncomfortable aspect to the whole area. Consumers are, in practical terms, entirely dependent on the company’s goodwill in honouring either a warranty or even consumer’s legal rights UNLESS the consumer is willing to fight it all the way to the conclusion of court action. Which you might lose, and may cost extra money and sure as hell is convenient, win or lose. And companies know that, full well. So, trying to enforce either warranty or consumer rights, UNLESS the company acts well, is a battle of wills.

The moral - it’s best to deal with a company with a good customer support reputation. It’s just not easy telling who that is, and the product is often more expensive because, after all, providing good customer support doesn’t come cheap to the company providing for it. The odds are, if you get it, you either paying for it up-front in the price, or the company is eating the cost as a marketing tactic to drive up the size of their customer base.