1999/44/EC in ireland

sudaltsov

Is the EU directive 1999/44/EC applicable in Ireland? They say, it was turned to Irish Law back in 2003. Does that mean that refund/replacement can be requested from any seller, within 2 years from purchase?

"The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery."

Or is there some trick that seller can use for NOT replacing/refunding?

dudara

I *think* the two year portion of the directive was not enacted in Ireland, as we have stronger consumer legislation. We provide a period of up to 6 years in which to make a claim (depending on the item/lifespan of the item in question).

However, I would really appreciate it if someone can offer a better clarification.

sudaltsov

6 years minimum? Where can I read about it?

kc90

sudaltsov wrote: »

6 years minimum? Where can I read about it?

http://www.eccireland.ie/popular-consumer-topics/buying-goods-and-services/

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0013.html

6 years is not always reasonable. There have been a few threads here about laptops that have ended up in small claims court and the general consensus seemed to be 5 years, in these cases. So, it depends on the item and, if you need to claim, may also depend on what a judge deems reasonable.

dudara

It's not a blanket 6 years. You have up to 6 years to seek redress. Obviously it depends on the type of product and expected lifespan of that product.

For instance, I might expect a TV to last over 6 years, but I might only reasonably expect 3-4 years from a laptop.

sudaltsov

My tablet died 1 year 1 month after purchase. I guess that is reasonable.

slimjimmc

sudaltsov wrote: »

6 years minimum? Where can I read about it?

6 years maximum, not minimum. It comes from the Statute of Limitations which says you have up to 6 years to lodge a claim for redress. As already mentioned Irish consumer law places high significance on what is reasonable.

However I would not consider 3-4 years a reasonable life for a laptop. Sure, it won't be as fast as newer models or support the latest bloated software, but in my experience it should continue to function perfectly well for many more years.

OP, you should expect to be offered a repair first, and that is reasonable if it's the first defect. If the repair fails or causes you significant inconvenience it's reasonable to push for a replacement or refund.

Bepolite

dudara wrote: »

I *think* the two year portion of the directive was not enacted in Ireland, as we have stronger consumer legislation. We provide a period of up to 6 years in which to make a claim (depending on the item/lifespan of the item in question).

However, I would really appreciate it if someone can offer a better clarification.

You've hit the nail on the head dudara - the directive called for a two year limitation period, we had 6. 6 > 2 therefore we did not need legislation to cover that. The directive was enacted under SI 11/2003.

Even if you want to argue we did not properly enact the directive you'd have to make a reference to the European court, theoretically this could be done from the District Court who look after the Small Claims Procedure but you would almost certainly require a solicitor and barrister with some specialty in EU law.

OP 1 year and 1 month is not reasonable under Irish law, simply ask for redress (repair) or use the Small Claims Procedure.

Bepolite

sudaltsov wrote: »

6 years minimum? Where can I read about it?

Statute of Limitation Act 1957

This has been amended see here. But I don't think those amendments changed the timeframe for consumer contracts in most cases. In all honesty OP I'd just take people's word for it and do something more productive than reading Acts but it's our law and anyone should be able to read it so there you go

dudara

sudaltsov wrote: »

My tablet died 1 year 1 month after purchase. I guess that is reasonable.

Personally, I would not consider that reasonable (I don't expect to have to buy a new tablet every year). I would get in touch with the retailer and seek some form of redress.

L1011

dudara wrote: »

Personally, I would not consider that reasonable (I don't expect to have to buy a new tablet every year). I would get in touch with the retailer and seek some form of redress.

Depending on the tablet, I would. Low end units are nicknamed "landfill android" for a reason. People persueing refunds on beyond lifespan cheap units will just ensure nobody sells them.

If it's Apple/Sony/Samsung/Acer/Archos, it should last though.

As goes a 4 year old laptop, the residual value would be under 100 quid for even a decent consumer model. Not worth chasing. You cannot get even extended warranties beyond 36 months on consumer IT products for a reason.

pleasant Co.

MYOB wrote: »

As goes a 4 year old laptop, the residual value would be under 100 quid for even a decent consumer model.

It's fair to ask what you're basing this valuation on. Are you talking about a decent 500/600 euro laptop or one more in the 1000-1200 range? Is it a case that you work with computers and this is what you think or have you sat through many SCC cases where many times the judgement has been reflective on what you've posted above?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

MYOB wrote: »

Depending on the tablet, I would. Low end units are nicknamed "landfill android" for a reason.

What's your basis for this?. What you consider a low end unit may not be thus for many other people. Have you seen SCC cases where a tablet of a certain value is deemed landfill android? If you are in to IT you might think a year is reasonable for a lower priced tablet but if you're not and only use it to read e books or such then a year is far from reasonable. I ask because I have experience of this kind of generalisation proven as false in SCC as the judge thought as the consumer did and not as the IT/retail geek did.

dudara

If the OP would share the tablet details with us (make, model) we would be better positioned to advise. Otherwise it's speculation.

sudaltsov

google nexus 7

L1011

pleasant Co. wrote: »

It's fair to ask what you're basing this valuation on. Are you talking about a decent 500/600 euro laptop or one more in the 1000-1200 range? Is it a case that you work with computers and this is what you think or have you sat through many SCC cases where many times the judgement has been reflective on what you've posted above?

A consumer laptop would be in the 300-700 range, and worth buttons after 4 years. I've worked in the industry for too bloody long at this stage.

Aidan Sparse Vigilante wrote: »

What's your basis for this?. What you consider a low end unit may not be thus for many other people. Have you seen SCC cases where a tablet of a certain value is deemed landfill android? If you are in to IT you might think a year is reasonable for a lower priced tablet but if you're not and only use it to read e books or such then a year is far from reasonable. I ask because I have experience of this kind of generalisation proven as false in SCC as the judge thought as the consumer did and not as the IT/retail geek did.

Anyone should be able to realise that a sub-€100 tablet is junk and its not particularly difficult to perform basic research before buying. The actual residual value after a year of one of them would be so low as to make posting it to a seller awkwardly dear.

If SCC judges are giving artificial residual values for items that are clearly well past their intended lifespan, that needs to be addressed and urgently.


In this case, with a Nexus 7, I'd take the case.

Bepolite

No one sits through SCC 'cases' they're done in an office informally. We've all only got cases reported here or our own experiences to go on. There is, in fact, no Small Claims Court, just a procedure in the District Court.

pleasant Co.

MYOB wrote: »

A consumer laptop would be in the 300-700 range, and worth buttons after 4 years. I've worked in the industry for too bloody long at this stage.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, appreciate it.

whiterebel

Bepolite wrote: »

No one sits through SCC 'cases' they're done in an office informally. We've all only got cases reported here or our own experiences to go on. There is, in fact, no Small Claims Court, just a procedure in the District Court.

Mine wasn't. All out in the open, as were all the others there.

Bepolite

whiterebel wrote: »

Mine wasn't. All out in the open, as were all the others there.

Where? In front of a registrar in the DC? Was your claim contested?

Alan_P

Bepolite wrote: »

Where? In front of a registrar in the DC? Was your claim contested?

I don't know about his, but mine was contested, and was heard in front of a District Court judge, with full public access and sworn testimony.

It was informal, but very definitely a sitting of the District Court :- there were numerous other cases heard on the same day as mine, including some with bewigged barristers snarling at each other.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The court clerk acts as registrar and will try to broker a settlement but if the matter still cannot be settled he/she will fix a time and date for a hearing of the claim before a judge of the District Court -

I don't know where you got it that they are all in private. Only the registrar's attempts at a settlement are. I have heard many in the district court?

sandin

also, its quite important to remember that it must be a verifiable manufacturing fault - a huge number of people have faults with products that is caused by their own mis-use.

So best to find out what the fault is and how it probably appeared. Check google to see if similar faults have appeared.

I had a samsung fridge freezer that caused problems last year - it is 8 years old. As Samsung knew about the issue, they fixed it free and without any argument within a day. Most good companies will repair a fault after the official warranty if they know its a manufacturing issue. - many years ago Isuzu replaced an engine free of charge on a 7 year old trooper, I managed to sell it for more than I paid 3 years previously due to the new engine.

So before getting ten steps ahead, talk to the company that does the warranty service for the product.

Bepolite

Aidan Sparse Vigilante wrote: »

The court clerk acts as registrar and will try to broker a settlement but if the matter still cannot be settled he/she will fix a time and date for a hearing of the claim before a judge of the District Court -

I don't know where you got it that they are all in private. Only the registrar's attempts at a settlement are. I have heard many in the district court?

Only contested cases make it into the District Court and in front of a judge. I was under the impression the vast majority are resolved by the registrar. AFAIK once they get to the DC they are DC cases with a right of appeal to the CC etc but I stand to be corrected on that.

Bepolite

Alan_P wrote: »

I don't know about his, but mine was contested, and was heard in front of a District Court judge, with full public access and sworn testimony.

It was informal, but very definitely a sitting of the District Court :- there were numerous other cases heard on the same day as mine, including some with bewigged barristers snarling at each other.

Very unusual for barristers to be wigged in the Dublin DCs, are you in a more rural area? Purely an aside BTW.

Alan_P

Bepolite wrote: »

Very unusual for barristers to be wigged in the Dublin DCs, are you in a more rural area? Purely an aside BTW.

To answer your aside, no I'm not rural, the case was heard in the Four Courts complex. The few cases involving barristers weren't Small Claims ones :- one I recall was a guy whose brand new BMW had been damaged in a car wash, and he was suing Esso, as the garage operator. I presume Esso were worried about a precedent being set.

I did notice that the barristers wearing wigs were all very young. I surmised at the time they thought the full fancy dress might impress, or possibly even intimidate a litte, the DC judge.

If my surmise was right, it was a big mistake, she wasn't impressed in the slightest and gave the impression she resented even having to listen to these guys wasting her time on a busy court day. On several occasions, she pretty much literally told them to shut up.

Bepolite

I've certainly heard of DC court judges being quite short with barristers. Not a chance any of them thought they'd intimidate a DC Judge! It's unusual for them to be wigged as new barristers don't generally buy them any more. What court where you in? I thought all the DCs were behind the Four Courts there in Bridewell.

No precedents set in the DC so Esso were just looking to protect the pennies.

Alan_P

Bepolite wrote: »

I've certainly heard of DC court judges being quite short with barristers. Not a chance any of them thought they'd intimidate a DC Judge! It's unusual for them to be wigged as new barristers don't generally buy them any more. What court where you in? I thought all the DCs were behind the Four Courts there in Bridewell.

No precedents set in the DC so Esso were just looking to protect the pennies.

I was in the Public Records Building, on the left as you go in the main Inn's Quay entrance.

sudaltsov

Currys were reasonably nice to me. Just offered 190 refund. Hopefully the end of the story.

whiterebel

Alan_P wrote: »

I don't know about his, but mine was contested, and was heard in front of a District Court judge, with full public access and sworn testimony.

It was informal, but very definitely a sitting of the District Court :- there were numerous other cases heard on the same day as mine, including some with bewigged barristers snarling at each other.

Yes, same with mine, contested. They had solicitors. All done in front of judge and everyone else waiting for their case to be heard.