4 ms·

Is there any plan to improve the current EU laws on products guarantees? Because the current one has a big problem: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consum

Is there any plan to improve the current EU laws on products guarantees? Because the current one has a big problem: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/faq/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar... "The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions. [...] Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible. [...] After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert." Because of the burden-of-proof condition it's basically only a 6 months guarantee instead of 2 years. Countries may improve these conditions and I think some countries like the UK actually do. This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.

wjnc 9y ago
Other institutions help consumers in this respect. Consumer organizations, collective claims and legal assistance insurance come to mind. The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum. I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.
- adrianN 9y ago
  And how many people are going to involve some third parties instead of just tossing the item and buying a new one?
  - wjnc 9y ago
    The problem is to think of a market structure where third parties are involved: Current EU-system, the seller is always first point of contact in case of defects. So the seller should involve a third party and then share costs (after 5, 10, 12 years depending on reasonable durability). So the market for third party repair isn't a consumer market! The only products I know third party repairs exists are: cars and household appliances. And even for household appliances the above holds, much goes via the seller. That it doesn't hold for cars is, I imagine, mostly lobbying. Even there collective consumer action is on the rise. Then there is an additional problem: technical progress. Having recently replaced many household appliances (mid-30s now, so everything was 10yrs+ old), my machines use 30-40% less energy (from A to A+++). I'd be an economic fool to keep the old machines. Law requires the supplier to take care of the waste, so I really have no incentive to keep the old machine in use. I'm a big proponent of 'right to repair'-rules BTW, but think they do not add much to the bigger picture. Pricing of household appliances as a function of the running costs have fallen dramatically. So repairing just makes little economic sense. The environmental impact, I'm not sure. I guess 100 kg of waste is a lot more damaging than a few thousand KWhs. But that all depends on the way disposed machines are treated. Cradle-to-cradle could make a lot bigger impact than right-to-repair imho.
  - mnm1 9y ago
    More than zero. Beyond that, it doesn't matter because it's not relevant.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Of course it's relevant. If enough people don't bother with getting their stuff repaired the increased warranty has no meaning. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to keep producing crappy stuff and fix it for the small number of people who care about their rights than to increase the quality (and the price) of their products. The waste problem remains.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Depends on the price of an item relative to one's wealth. I pulled the book on a seller just once in my life - I had a shitty job, and I saved up for an expensive tablet, only to get one that was broken and have the seller (a big brand in my country) try to weasel out of replacing it. It took a strongly worded letter to company's HQ to finally get them to replace the product, and while I was ultimately successful, the whole experience was pretty mentally taxing. I'd say taxing enough that it's not worth it if the item costs less than 10% of your monthly income. However, I do know of people who fight for their rights as consumers as a matter of principle, and I actually applaud them. They do a good work for the commons.
pizza234 9y ago
I live in EU, and I've never had complaints from the producers within the 2 years warranty (I buy most of the things online, so after 2 weeks, for any problem, I always deal with the producer). I even had two items (headphones and oven) breaking 1/2 month before the expiry, and still, they have been replaced.
_delirium 9y ago
> This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible. I can imagine cases where this works against the consumer, but in most cases where I buy things, the seller is far more accessible, and perhaps more importantly, also far more exposed to EU jurisdiction such that they bother to actually comply with these kinds of EU regulations. For example, if I buy a microwave at Wilko, it works to my advantage that Wilko, not whatever company in China manufactured it, is the responsible party.

wjnc 9y ago

Other institutions help consumers in this respect. Consumer organizations, collective claims and legal assistance insurance come to mind. The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum. I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.

adrianN 9y ago
And how many people are going to involve some third parties instead of just tossing the item and buying a new one?
- wjnc 9y ago
  The problem is to think of a market structure where third parties are involved: Current EU-system, the seller is always first point of contact in case of defects. So the seller should involve a third party and then share costs (after 5, 10, 12 years depending on reasonable durability). So the market for third party repair isn't a consumer market! The only products I know third party repairs exists are: cars and household appliances. And even for household appliances the above holds, much goes via the seller. That it doesn't hold for cars is, I imagine, mostly lobbying. Even there collective consumer action is on the rise. Then there is an additional problem: technical progress. Having recently replaced many household appliances (mid-30s now, so everything was 10yrs+ old), my machines use 30-40% less energy (from A to A+++). I'd be an economic fool to keep the old machines. Law requires the supplier to take care of the waste, so I really have no incentive to keep the old machine in use. I'm a big proponent of 'right to repair'-rules BTW, but think they do not add much to the bigger picture. Pricing of household appliances as a function of the running costs have fallen dramatically. So repairing just makes little economic sense. The environmental impact, I'm not sure. I guess 100 kg of waste is a lot more damaging than a few thousand KWhs. But that all depends on the way disposed machines are treated. Cradle-to-cradle could make a lot bigger impact than right-to-repair imho.
- mnm1 9y ago
  More than zero. Beyond that, it doesn't matter because it's not relevant.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Of course it's relevant. If enough people don't bother with getting their stuff repaired the increased warranty has no meaning. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to keep producing crappy stuff and fix it for the small number of people who care about their rights than to increase the quality (and the price) of their products. The waste problem remains.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Depends on the price of an item relative to one's wealth. I pulled the book on a seller just once in my life - I had a shitty job, and I saved up for an expensive tablet, only to get one that was broken and have the seller (a big brand in my country) try to weasel out of replacing it. It took a strongly worded letter to company's HQ to finally get them to replace the product, and while I was ultimately successful, the whole experience was pretty mentally taxing. I'd say taxing enough that it's not worth it if the item costs less than 10% of your monthly income. However, I do know of people who fight for their rights as consumers as a matter of principle, and I actually applaud them. They do a good work for the commons.

pizza234 9y ago

I live in EU, and I've never had complaints from the producers within the 2 years warranty (I buy most of the things online, so after 2 weeks, for any problem, I always deal with the producer). I even had two items (headphones and oven) breaking 1/2 month before the expiry, and still, they have been replaced.

_delirium 9y ago

> This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible. I can imagine cases where this works against the consumer, but in most cases where I buy things, the seller is far more accessible, and perhaps more importantly, also far more exposed to EU jurisdiction such that they bother to actually comply with these kinds of EU regulations. For example, if I buy a microwave at Wilko, it works to my advantage that Wilko, not whatever company in China manufactured it, is the responsible party.