When is a 12 month warranty not a 12 month warranty?

[scaryjim]

ChrisP has now confirmed that you do not get a full 12 month warranty:http://forums.hexus.net/scan-care-he...ml#post2272373

"We have now fixed in place that as long as an RMA number has been issued by SCAN ... AND ... Proof of the Return can be given that the product was returned BEFORE the warranty has expired, which starts from the Invoice Date then the RMA will be honoured."

I read that as saying that if you obtain an RMA number and post the item within the warranty period, and provide Scan with proof of postage demonstrating that you posted the item inside the warranty period, Scan will still honour the RMA. Of course that depends on how long it takes Scan to issue the RMA. So you might lose a few days whilst Scan get their RMA numbers sorted. Presumably if you knew the warranty was nearly up you could ring Scan, explain to them that the warranty is nearly up and you'd appreciate a quick RMA, and hopefully they'd process it on the same day. You're always going to get some level of debate regards the end of a warranty: if they allowed it from the RMA request date then people would just ring on the last day of the warranty period and make up a fault, request an RMA and get several weeks of additional warranty.

I think it's not unreasonable to say you have to have an RMA number and have posted the item within warranty period, since you have to draw the line somewhere. And given the specific circumstances of the case we're discussing (i.e. the consumer failed to return the product despite obtaining an RMA number in plenty of time) you can understand why they'd have to make those kinds of decisions about line drawing.

[Saracen]

So:

A 12 month warranty is for 12 months out of retailer's possession (or proven in transit to retailer) and not 12 months of use from sale date.

Wow!

No, not quite. It's for what the warranty terms say it's for. One retailer might do it one way, and another differently./

[doyll49]

Did a little research and found this article from The Guardian 23/5/09:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...umer-guarantee

Excerpts from article:

Staff at the European Commission told Guardian Money this week that shoppers have an extremely strong case for demanding a repair, replacement or refund on items up to two years old – the minimum guarantee for all member states, including the UK. It is not a new rule, but it seems few shoppers or retailers are familiar with it.

According to Which? consumer lawyer Chris Warner, too few people are aware of their rights. "While it is true that the EU consumer rules mean stores should repair or replace items that break inside two years, Soga affords consumers protection up to six years from the date of purchase."

The act says all goods sold have to be of "satisfactory quality and fit for purpose", however he admits that getting a refund for a broken item in the UK is a bit hit and miss once it is more than a year old.

"The confusion arises from the existence of manufacturer guarantees. These are often for one year and often consumers will be told that when the manufacturer's guarantee runs out, there is nothing else that can be done. This is not right in most cases.

"The courts will judge what is reasonable. Clearly if you buy a £10 iron, your expectations are not the same as if you've bought the top-of-the-range model. If you bought the latter and it failed after four years, it would be reasonable to argue that it should have lasted longer, and that a repair or replacement is due.

"I don't think it's too cynical to say that retailers have been happy to let consumers think they have only a year's guarantee," he says.

Last year we exposed how Amazon was offering repairs on items only up to six months old, relying on consumers deciding it wasn't worth pursuing the online retailer.

[doyll49]

No, not quite. It's for what the warranty terms say it's for. One retailer might do it one way, and another differently./

Sorry. Edited my original to include Scan.

[BobF64]

I always though, maybe wrongly, that as long as you reported or filed a warranty claim before the warranty expired, it was valid.

That is in the same way as the DSR works, such that you have to inform the seller within 7 days that you will be returning it, and it doesnt have to arrive back within 7 days, just a "reasonable time" after you have informed them.

[badass]

No, not quite. It's for what the warranty terms say it's for. One retailer might do it one way, and another differently./

Subject to the terms being "fair"
For example, should a retailer offer a 1 year warranty and then hide in the small print:
That the item must be sent to their returns acceptance department who then forward it to their returns processing department with a 3 month delay.
That the item must be received by their returns processing department within 1 year.

I would expect that those terms would be deemed unenforceable.

Of course I doubt any company would be so brazen to implement such stupid terms as that, but I am using it as an example only.

I would expect that should a case similar to the OP's end up going high enough to become case law, Scan would lose and they would probably decide that a 1 year covers objects that have faults notified within 1 year, provided the item is then received within a reasonable time after the notification.
I will speculate that reasonable in that case would be decided as in the region of 2 weeks to one month after notification.

[blueball]

Just to clear things up, I'm not the guy who had the warranty issue, I'm just appalled that something that is advertised as a 12 month warranty is not in fact a 12 month warranty.

I have been on Scan's site and when you view an item there is an area with "Warranty" information. It gives the basics along with a "click here for full info" link. When you click on the link it takes you to Scan's Ts&Cs which state that:

The terms of any manufacturer's guarantee and after sales service will be included within the documents accompanying the goods.

So you cannot see the warranty info until you receive the goods.

[Saracen]

Did a little research and found this article from The Guardian 23/5/09:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...umer-guarantee

Excerpts from article:

Take care when interpreting what the EU mean by "guarantee" with what it is commonly taken to mean in the UK. The two are not the same.

There is NO requirement in the UK, whether as a result of the EU directive (it's 1999/44/EC, by the way) to have a two year seller warranty. None at all. It's a misconception. What there is. however, is an EU standard that national consumers laws must adopt minimum consistent principles, and part of that is that national legislation within member states must give certain minimum consumer rights in relation to 'conformity with contract' in relation to consumers buying from retailers. That is exactly what the Sale of Goods Act does.

In relation to time limits, that EU directive requires that these 'conformity' stipulations must give a minimum two year period. In the UK, that was already 6 years, the period for general legal action within which the SoGA operates, and as 6 years is greater than two years, that part of the EU directive made no difference in the UK. Other bits were reflected in some changes to the SoGA, but that on that bit, we were already in receipt of a provision far in excess of the minimum standard the EU mandated.


Read both those quotes within the context of that and you can see, I hope. what I'm getting at.

As I pointed out earlier, you have consumer rights as a result of legislation, and you might have optional shop warranties. That EU directive affected the former, and not the later.

The EU staff were right, for instance, about people having a case for repair/replacement up to 2 years, though in fact, in the UK, it's up to 6 years. Whether it is strong or not will depend on the circumstances.

The Which lawyer is correct too, in that many consumers will be told that when a shop warranty (often one year) runs out, nothing can be done. That is true, people are often told that. It is wrong, and it was both done and wrong before the EU directive, which in that regard, changed nothing. The directive (or rather, it's implementation into national law) did change the remedies available, and the process, but not the time limit.

As I said earlier, the confusion is between a shop "guarantee" and consumer rights. That EU directive was all about minimum consumer rights, not optional shop warranties.

There is nothing Scan or any other retailer can do to minimise or amend your consumer rights. But they can offer a guarantee in addition to that. If you rely on the guarantee, then within the limits already discussed, they offer what they wish. The consumer rights are what national consumer legislation says they are, and that directive didn't change the time period for that in the UK in any way, because it set a minimum we already substantially exceeded.

[flearider]

it's great to see an admin ..whos major advertiser/partner when comming under fire defend the rights of a company ..
when infact and has been proven there are or could be missleading ..

[Saracen]

it's great to see an admin ..whos major advertiser/partner when comming under fire defend the rights of a company ..
when infact and has been proven there are or could be missleading ..

I am not defending Scan. If you read my posts above, you'll notice I pointed out I am no Scan fan. If you search, you'll find a very public row between me and a Scan manager over the way they market their Scansure insurance in an opt-out way. Because of that policy, which I still find obnoxious, offensive, unethical and extremely presumptuous, I haven't used Scan for anything in a couple of years, and I've stopped recommending them to friends and business contacts, for that reason.

Whether Scan are a forum sponsor or partner or not, they are NOT a partner of mine, and I suspect they'd tell you the same thing. Moreover, I have not and never will amend my comments on someone like Scan, or anyone else for that matter, because they have a business relationship with Hexus. Nobody, but nobody, is going to get me to modify my opinion, or the expression of it, for a reason like that. Nor has anybody at HEXUS ever tried. If they did, I'd leave the mod team and carry on expressing my opinion as a standard member.

In fact, I have so little interest in Scan that my account blocks all access to Scan sections. I can't even read what goes on in there, much less defend them, and I only know what happened because it was posted in a Hexus section, and because I used another browser with no Hexus cookie set to view Scan as a guest.

When I see a company, forum partner or not, do something I disagree with or don't like, I'll say so, and them being a forum partner makes zero difference to me. However, this time, I don't see what they've done wrong. Most of my comment in this thread has been about the general legalities, and most recently, about the misunderstanding of the impact of EU directives on UK law. If you, or anyone else, thinks I'm wrong on that, feel free to explain why and we'll discuss it. But if you seriously think I'm defending Scan because of their relationship with Hexus, you are badly mistaken. If I thought they were wrong, I'd cheerfully say so. But this time, I don't.

[doyll49]

I agree with you Saracen. I posted link to article so all could read entire article. I also take anything from news media with a grain or two of salt.

flearider,
You need to know what you are talking about before you sound off. Saracen is giving fair and honest information, not taking Scan's side.