Tumble Dryer Broken 2 Months Out of Warranty

Fish Bloke

So we bought a tumble dryer about 2 years ago in a retailer with an Australian accent.
(Not sure if I can name names here!)

It's broken down entirely, two months outside of the warranty, and they flat out refuse to help us out at all.

Just wondering if we've got any rights here.
It was a very expensive machine and to break down so soon - it seems like we should have some kind of consumer rights here.

Does anyone know if I have a comeback?

jpb1974

Doubt it... a 2 year warranty is a 2 year warranty and once it's up it's up.

It makes sense to factor in the warranty when shopping for electrical goods like these... the longer the warranty the better and where possible look for parts & labour warranties.

I paid a bit more for our Siemens washing machine because it came with a 5 years parts & labour warranty.

So to answer your question: My guess is no, you don't have a case.

old_aussie

Do you know what part/parts have broken?

Fish Bloke

old_aussie wrote: »

Do you know what part/parts have broken?

I think it's a belt. I'm not sure of the inner workings now, but I'm assuming that's what makes the drum do the tumbling!

aidan_walsh

The warranty is the manufacturer's warranty and doesn't affect your consumer rights. Any purchased items should be at least examined for repair by the store you bought it from if it breaks down within what would be expected to be its reasonable lifetime expectancy, and a washing machine would have a reasonable life of more than 26 months.

rameire

www.espares.co.uk
i have used this for parts,
very quick and cheaper than an engineer.

google your fault online and you may find the actual reason for the fault, and thus may be able to fix it yourself.

Fish Bloke

aidan_walsh wrote: »

The warranty is the manufacturer's warranty and doesn't affect your consumer rights. Any purchased items should be at least examined for repair by the store you bought it from if it breaks down within what would be expected to be its reasonable lifetime expectancy, and a washing machine would have a reasonable life of more than 26 months.

Really? They actually organised to send out a technician, then rang on the day he was due to call and told us we were out of warranty so he wouldn't be coming. I thought that was a little bit lacking in terms of customer service myself. :mad:

We were quoted by the electrician we called at €90 for parts(the belt) and labour(the two minutes it'll take to put it in). Does this sound like a bit much?

jpb1974

reasonable lifetime expectancy

I'd have thought that 'reasonable lifetime expectancy' for something like a tumble dryer would be based more-so on usage and not duration given that moving parts would typically deteriorate with use.

Something like the belt going sounds more like wear n' tear than a fault.

Not disagreeing with you... just curious.

aidan_walsh

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'd have thought that 'reasonable lifetime expectancy' for something like a tumble dryer would be based more-so on usage and not duration given that moving parts would typically deteriorate with use.

Something like the belt going sounds more like wear n' tear than a fault.

Not disagreeing with you... just curious.

Thats a possibility, and if it is just the belt that is gone then it is not necessarily on the store to replace it. However, if it is a case that something else that wouldn't normally suffer wear and tear is causing the machine to have died then the store should be taking responsibility.

Fish Bloke

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Thats a possibility, and if it is just the belt that is gone then it is not necessarily on the store to replace it. However, if it is a case that something else that wouldn't normally suffer wear and tear is causing the machine to have died then the store should be taking responsibility.

If that's the case, then shouldn't the store at least have checked it out? We didn't know it was the belt until our electrician told us. It could have been something else, they didn't know it wasn't.

jpb1974

TBH - I'd be very surprised if the store had to honour a purchase made 26 months back.

That's a long time and I don't see how the store can provide additional cover (at no expense) to what the manufacturer has already provided with the product i.e. your 2 year warranty.

Nody

jpb1974 wrote: »

That's a long time and I don't see how the store can provide additional cover (at no expense) to what the manufacturer has already provided with the product i.e. your 2 year warranty.

To bad for them that they still have to do it though as it is a legal requirement to operate a store in Ireland under the Sales of Goods act.

To OP, write a written letter to the head office (no complaints/whining, only clearly state what happened and when) outlining that you consider that the company is not taking their responsability under the SoGa and that you wish to have a reply with in 10 working days from the date of the letter. If not you will be forced to start a legal proceeding via the Small Claims Court against them.

If you don't get a response with in the 10 business days then start the SCC case (15 EUR and can be done online iirc). I'd be putting cash on that you'll get it fixed before it goes up before a judge.

Fish Bloke

Nody wrote: »

To bad for them that they still have to do it though as it is a legal requirement to operate a store in Ireland under the Sales of Goods act.

To OP, write a written letter to the head office (no complaints/whining, only clearly state what happened and when) outlining that you consider that the company is not taking their responsability under the SoGa and that you wish to have a reply with in 10 working days from the date of the letter. If not you will be forced to start a legal proceeding via the Small Claims Court against them.

If you don't get a response with in the 10 business days then start the SCC case (15 EUR and can be done online iirc). I'd be putting cash on that you'll get it fixed before it goes up before a judge.

I might just do this! Do you think if I had the €90 paid to the electrician before then, I could at least ask for it to be reimbursed?

jpb1974

SOGA

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate after sale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

Wasn't the warranty period stated as 2 years?

MidlandsM

jpb1974 wrote: »

Doubt it... a 2 year warranty is a 2 year warranty and once it's up it's up.

This is wrong and indicitve of the understanding the average consumer has of law here in Ireland and its that ignorance of consumers rights thats something that retailers thrive on.
Regardless of the item being out of the manufacters warranty, you still have a case OP.

Under the 'The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980', goods should be:
• Of merchantable quality
• As described
• Fit for its purpose (regardless of any warranty)
• Corresponding to sample

All of the above points are enforceable under Irish Law regardless of their own terms and conditions and regardless of any Warranty or
Guarantee.

The item is no longer fit for purpose as it should last for many more years, and therefore you have a case.
Call consumer connect and they'll re-inforce this and tell you the way to persue it.

jpb1974

So what is the official "reasonable period" for a tumble dryer to function without issue?

Does this "reasonable period" take into consideration the fact that one household use it every day and the next only use it once a week?

it should last for many more years

How many more years? Do we roll the dice or is there an official figure?

SOGA

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate after sale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

Has the shop breached this term from the Sales of Goods Act?

I'm not arguing with you... but there has to be an element of common sense to these laws.

dudara

It all comes down to what is called a "reasonable lifetime" for the product.

I know that my mother goes through a washing machine about every 2-3 years because she washes my father's work clothes. Yet in another household, the same machine could last many years. Different definitions of "reasonable lifetimes".

OP, perhaps you could give us an idea of the usuage your machine gets.

Nody

jpb1974 wrote: »

So what is the official "reasonable period" for a tumble dryer to function without issue?

Does this "reasonable period" take into consideration the fact that one household use it every day and the next only use it once a week?

How many more years? Do we roll the dice or is there an official figure?

...

I'm not arguing with you... but there has to be an element of common sense to these laws.

In so many words; up to six years (important part being up to, it does not imply all items should, or will, last six years) and the only one that can make the call is the judge in court because the law don't specify it. There may be some previous cases to refer back to but I'm to lazy to try to go find 'em

jpb1974

As far as I can see the seller hasn't breached the terms outlined in the SOGA.

The tumble dryer was sold with a 2 year warranty as described/advertised by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer.

The conditions stated in the SOGA have been met -

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate after sale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

I'm sure if you approached the shop within the agreed 24 months there would have been no issue.

Can anyone tell me how the SOGA has been breached here?

I can't find the SOGA term(s) that discusses that even if the stated/official/agreed warranty period has expired that the seller must honour an un-documented extended warranty period e.g. 6 years as mentioned by Nody.

If the terms of the sale didn't state any sort of warranty period then fair ball... you can argue what defines 'a reasonable period'.

dudara

Nody wrote: »

In so many words; up to six years (important part being up to, it does not imply all items should, or will, last six years) and the only one that can make the call is the judge in court because the law don't specify it. There may be some previous cases to refer back to but I'm to lazy to try to go find 'em

The consumer has up to six years to seek redress for the item - not a six year lifetime.

slimjimmc

jpb1974 wrote: »

As far as I can see the seller hasn't breached the terms outlined in the SOGA.

The tumble dryer was sold with a 2 year warranty as described/advertised by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer.

The conditions stated in the SOGA have been met -

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate after sale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

I'm sure if you approached the shop within the agreed 24 months there would have been no issue.

Can anyone tell me how the SOGA has been breached here?

I can't find the SOGA term(s) that discusses that even if the stated/official/agreed warranty period has expired that the seller must honour an un-documented extended warranty period e.g. 6 years as mentioned by Nody.

If the terms of the sale didn't state any sort of warranty period then fair ball... you can argue what defines 'a reasonable period'.

That only says the seller should provide spares and after sales service (not necessarily for free). It's the actual machine itself that the OP may be calling into question and that's covered under at paragraphs 14(2) - 14(6) in Section 10 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0010.html

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—
( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or
( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

The OP may be disputing that the tumble dryer was of merchantable quality in the first place. If the OP's usage is higher than normally expected then the item's life may be shortened and the worn belt may be deemed normal wear and tear. However, if the OP informed the seller the machine was required for high usage or heavy loads or any other requirement, then para 14(4) kicks in:

(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.

borderlinemeath

I would reckon because it's a belt that has deteriorated it is not covered under SoGa as it's indicitive of the amount of use the tumble dryer has had.

If a garage sold a car with a two year warranty and the purchaser put 100,000miles on the car yet came back on the 26th month as he had a timing belt issue he wouldn't be covered as the car has shown to have excessive mileage and probably left unserviced. The mileage is the key to the excessive use.

Just a pity there isn't a timer put into the systems of washing machines/tumble dryers as this would give a definitive answer to this and a lot of other warranty issues.
As a previous poster has said, one tumble dryer in a large family can have contant use. I think I used my tumble dryer about 10 times during the winter as they are electricity guzzlers and I actually prefer line dried clothes. I have had mine for 5yrs.

jpb1974

The OP may be disputing that the tumble dryer was of merchantable quality in the first place

I don't believe that this is the case at all. The machine worked fine for 26 months and has obviously been subject to a certain amount of wear and tear.

Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect

The machine was fit for purpose when sold. It has serviced the OP for 26 months prior to the issue.

'Durable as it is reasonable to expect' - By entering into an agreement with the seller to purchase the machine with a 2 year warranty I believe that you are affectively agreeing that the durability of the machine is covered for 2 years by the seller. Therefore you 'expect' the machine to work for a minimum of 24 months.

If a garage sold a car with a two year warranty and the purchaser put 100,000miles on the car yet came back on the 26th month as he had a timing belt issue he wouldn't be covered as the car has shown to have excessive mileage and probably left unserviced. The mileage is the key to the excessive use.

Agreed. Car warranties don't really cover anything wear & tear related.

The fact of the matter is that the SOGA is as clear as mud in places but I think that the seller must be protected too.

Based on some of the grey assumptions on this thread I could bring back a 6 year old knackered tumble dryer, claim that it was very lightly used (irrespective of whether it actually was or not) and demand a repair even though I entered into an agreement with the seller to purchase the machine with a 2 year warranty.

Nody

jpb1974 wrote: »

Based on some of the grey assumptions on this thread I could bring back a 6 year old knackered tumble dryer, claim that it was very lightly used (irrespective of whether it actually was or not) and demand a repair even though I entered into an agreement with the seller to purchase the machine with a 2 year warranty.

No, the manufacturer is giving a 2 year warranty; the seller has given nothing of the kind. That is the important thing to distinguish here; the seller is the one responsible for the support - the fact that the manufacturer gives 2 year, 4 year of 50 year warranty is not really relevant.

jpb1974

the fact that the manufacturer gives 2 year, 4 year of 50 year warranty is not really relevant

If you refer back to the SOGA (again) -

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate after sale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

Nody

jpb1974 wrote: »

If you refer back to the SOGA (again) -

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate after sale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

Yes, by THE SELLER. The seller is NOT the manufacturer but the shop where the OP bought, and paid, for the goods. Read it again, the seller can offer an warranty on behalf of the manufacturer (not done in this case) of if the seller do not offer such warranty then it is to last for a reasonble period.

It all goes back to the seller doing the offer though which is not the case which is what the stores in general try to avoid by blaiming it on the manufacturer. Hence if the manufacturer offers 2, 4, or 50 year warranty does not matter because the contract is not with them (unless the store shuts down in which case the liability is moved over to the manufacturer if memory serves).

jpb1974

The problem with your argument Nody is that you're not actually explaining yourself clearly nor backing up your points with facts.

Effectively what you are saying is that agreed warranty periods are effectively not worth the paper their written on and that consumers can ignore them whenever it so suits up to a period of 6 years.... yet you can't supply us with the relevant documentation supporting this theory.

It's fine to reference a court case from God only knows when... but we'd need to spend time reviewing such examples (which you've failed to provide) to see if they're all of a similar disposition and applicable to the OP issue.

In this instance I think it is very clear that the OP entered into an agreement with the retailer under the agreement that the seller, based on the manufacturers warranty) would honour a warranty up to 2 years. The SOGA effectively states that the seller must provide a warranty as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer which in this case the seller has done so.

Based on the OPs original post it seems the retailer was willing to assist up to the point where they realised the 2 year warranty period was up.

Nody

The problem with "backing it up with facts" is that most cases never go up to the judge to decide nor gets published.

TLDR version - EU says Ireland has 6 year warranty and court statistics back up that consumers settle the majority of cases taken to SCC favorably

But ok, lets drive down a list of things we know, ok?

1) Ireland has more then 2 year warranty (Directive 1999/44/EC, mandatory from 1st of January 2002) - How do we know? Because when 2 year warranty became mandatory in EU Ireland (and UK) did not implement this in local law because the local law already gave a better protection. We can also see here about the 6 year limit getting an mention here for example on page 9 (qouted below).

6. TIME LIMITS – ARTICLE 5(1)
The seller is liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from the moment of delivery (Article 5(1)). A majority of Member States have transposed this provision literally. Others have chosen to rely on the time limitation that is generally applicable in their contract law: Finland (3 years from delivery), Ireland and the UK (six years for both countries). The Netherlands has transposed a two years limitation period starting from the notification of the defect. In the Czech Republic there is a variation depending on the type of goods being sold (consumer goods – 2 years, foodstuff – 3 weeks, groceries– 8 days), which needs to be clarified. Portuguese law seems to go below the level of protection envisaged by the Directive by providing that an action needs to be brought within 6 months from the moment the consumer notified the defect to the seller.

2) Rulings - Since this 2 year warranty is standard on electronical goods then the stores would have no issue with disputing this in court since hey, a free win and you're done. Now here where things get tricky though but we'll do a facts by number assocciation here. We have the rulings in 2008 here.

4145 cases submitted
426 ruled not to be covered by the procedure
388 Cases not proceeded with (I'll assume settled out of court since if you bothered to submit it why cancel it)
349 Decreed by default (win for the person submitting it)
1723 settled by the registrar
1030 referred to court

So before we even go up in court we have: 2460 (62.8%) cases settled on terms we will have to assume are acceptable to the person submitting it. Now once again, we don't have the specific break down per type (sadly) but we'll have to assume a relatively even distrubtion between the categories.

Now of the cases in court (1030, 1028 decided in 2008) 442 where granted (win for the person submitting it), 201 where dismissed (lose for the person submitting it) and 385 withdrawn (once again I'll assume win for the person submitting it by getting a deal with the registrar before going up in court as all they can lose is their 15 EUR cost of submitting the claim and hence has no reason not to argue their case in court).

This then leaves a 827 out of 1028 being in favor of the submitter of a claim or 80.4% success rate for the consumer for cases going all the way to court.

Now the big manufacturers and retailers are all blaming the 2 year warranty and refuse to do things after that (see numerous threads here about Sony, Apple, Power City et al) and/or try to sell you an additional insurance to cover it (Dell are classic for this). Yet if we look above if things have gone to court in general assuming a normal distrubution of claims between categories they have lost.

Then there is the circumstancial evidence which has been posted here a few times where the submission of a SCC case has triggered the company to do the change/repair/refund from the HQ which was refused earlier i store. Once again we're talking circumstancial evidence because we do not have the actual submission and correspondence at hand of it though the SCC numbers qouted above do tend to indicate that they are most likely correct.

This means one of three things, either the markets can not be bothered to go to the SCC to fight it (in which case my version of what SoGa means is enough since the OP get what he wants), they are afraid to lose in court (Ford calculation of cost of court cases vs. cost of fixing the problem) often enough to make it not worth it and hence fixes everything or simply that the store is wrong since they keep on paying for it if it goes to court.

Now does that satisify your level of detail and facts to back up the point that the 2 year warranty means nothing in practice and that the OP would have a very good chance of winning a SCC case?

It has nothing to do with what I think is right/wrong; this is what goes on in Ireland. Foggy Lad for example can most likely confirm that we've had some arguments over how much the store needs to cover etc. before here on this forum. But the reality is that the stores do tend to fob of people in store when if going to court they would not.

jpb1974

Taking generic stats from the small claims court isn't a valid argument because who can say that all of the cases were near enough similar to the OP's case? A small claims court hearing could be related to something like a dry cleaner who destroyed a customers suit... a mechanic who fixed a car fault only for it to re-occur 6 months later etc. Not the same situation in every case.

What you're also doing here Nody is making a lot of assumptions in order to support you're own argument e.g. 385 withdrawn are wins for the consumer may not be the case at all.

It's not really a valid argument Nody. High level generic figures without at least a few detailed samples of similar cases is thin to say the least.

The only thing I would agree with is that the laws are so grey that any party might have a chance in court.

Nody

The problem is ~75% of all claims are settled before they go before a judge and we have no way of knowing what happened with out access to individual results and communication (impossible to get for most I think we both can agree on).

I based my assumption on a very simple idea which is if you bother to submitt your claim to the SCC for 15 EUR you're likely to argue it all the way simply because you bothered to go to court over it in the first place. True or not is impossible to say since statistic is scarce with details.

You are right, I have not provided any examples of a tumbler breaking and the simple reason is because I have none. I've followed a few threads where people have claimed to submitted SCC, many did not come back with a result but the once that did where positive. Once again the numbers above would tend to agree with this assumption (based on the threads and the ruling assumption I made above) but the problem is once again a very clear lack of good data to work with (a data pool which I honestly believe don't exist).

What would be ideal of course would be a list of all rulings which we could go over but to my knowledge this is not available (or if it is I am not aware of where).

Does that mean I think it is appropiate in general etc. as a country policy to have in law? Not really, but that is not my argument in the thread is about but rather if the OP can get it fixed or not (ignoring what the correct interpetation of the law is for the moment since it will always be murky and unclear). You will also find me arguing against people who complain about not being allowed to change an item because of X, Y or Z etc.

At the end of the day though my argument can be summed up like this, the OP will at worst lose 15 EUR for a SCC submission and have a in my oppinion more then 50% chance to get it fixed for free but it would take a few months to churn through. Now the cost was qouted at 90 EUR to fix it, this means that if there is more then 16.67% chance of winning that is a money well spent. Legally correct or not if the OP gets the result he wants then I'll have to put it down as a success.

jpb1974

Just as well the weather is picking up. I hope the OP has a clothes line in the meantime

complicit

If a product breaks after less than six months , then the onus is on the seller
to prove that it was not a manufacturing fault .

After six months the buyer must prove that it was a manufacturing fault , rather than wear and tear or misuse .

Nody

complicit wrote: »

If a product breaks after less than six months , then the onus is on the seller
to prove that it was not a manufacturing fault .

After six months the buyer must prove that it was a manufacturing fault , rather than wear and tear or misuse .

UK law is not applicable for goods bought in an Irish store (what you qouted is from the UK consumer law); all the buyer has to do is to notify the seller promptly and the seller then has to decide how to remedy the issue.

dudara

complicit wrote: »

If a product breaks after less than six months , then the onus is on the seller
to prove that it was not a manufacturing fault .

After six months the buyer must prove that it was a manufacturing fault , rather than wear and tear or misuse .

I was just about to say the same - that's UK law, isn't it?

MidlandsM

complicit wrote: »

If a product breaks after less than six months , then the onus is on the seller
to prove that it was not a manufacturing fault .

After six months the buyer must prove that it was a manufacturing fault , rather than wear and tear or misuse .

this is rubbish, and erronious.