I do advocacy work for Citizens Advice Bureau and the majority of it is against retailers trying to convince customers that they are not entitled to repairs or refunds. We were taught that the reasonable life time on a latop is 1yr for every $200 spent! Courts recently declared that a reasonable life on a Dell laptop is 5yrs. Sadly not alot of people know that. Avoid retailers if something has broken down!! Go directly to the manufacturer which is your legal right and read them the riot act if they try and piss you around. Warranties are a blatant marketing ploy to make more money. Retailers should be pushing for manufacturers to be honoring their legal obligations under the CGA
I Agree, I've been in retail long enough to see manufactures reduce prices because they reduce warranty lengths. It's obvious they factor the costs of repairs into the price they sell the products for, but what's most annoying in NZ is that the come back is on the retailer not the manufacturers. So brand "S" can reduce warranty from 3 years to 1 year and now all the faulty goods in those 2 lost years are expected to be fixed by the retailer. Win Win for the manufacturer, lose lose for the retailer. They need to put the responsibility back on the manufacturer and leave the retailer out of it. Unfortunately we know the manufacturers would then simply increase the costs and the consumer ends up paying. Option B is that you scrap the law, consumers either pay for a warranty (at a reasonable price - no profitaring allowed) or they take the chance with only the manufactures warranty, leave it as a choice.
I always have a chuckle when the extended warranty Vs CGA saga has a mention on the news. If the product you purchase only has a 12 month warranty under the CGA how long should the warranty be? 2-3-4-5 years no one knows as the CGA doesn't tell you. People want a definitive answer or a number for them to have peace of mind. I am sick of hearing oh you should be covered under the CGA but in reality you are not. If the CGA says you should be covered for 5 years than why has the government not stepped in and made it mandatory for the product to have this warranty written on paperwork so the consumer has proof and peace of mind. Because in the real world they do not have the power to do this and it would probly see a lot of products no longer available to New Zealand consumers and the end of small retailers. So I would say to the consumers institute practise what you preach and also have a Fair Go and stop missleading us poor people and get their heads out of the clouds.
I agree with the ministry of consumer affairs. Consumers want to save money, not spend like hell. Retailers want to make money. The main reason, they can escape baring the cost of replacements or repair. Why would you pay for something that you get for free? Retailers are in the business of making money. As an ex-employee of Noel Leeming, I found that you are disciplined for not selling extended warranties. I did my best, but at the end of the day it is the customer's choice. You cannot force the customer or threaten to get them to buy an extended warranty. One the other hand, the law says it depends on the price you pay. I also found out that it is partly manufacturers who compete buy making cheap products that break. They do this on purpose because that is the only way they can guarantee for themselves future sales.
extended warranties are awesome
I found it very interesting how the reporter kpt emphasising that you should be covered but they didn't go into any detail about what to d if something happens after the warranty from the manufacturer ends, which would be the most use to consumers. This story was pathetic in the one sideness of it and that it had no information bar "you should be covered under the cga," there wasn't even any information about the cga and what it states. The only time the slightest information about the cga was given was from the Noel Leeming executive, someone they were clearly trying to put down. Consumers wnat information on how to deal with retails when they want replace after the warranty has ended. Interesting fact; Noel Leeming has an exclusive advertising deal with TVNZ and this is he second time in 2 months Tv3 has done a story against them, the first being false.
Tamati thats the problem. I have asked a retailer that and theyre not aloud to offer an opinion on how long expected life is.. Thats why the law is so vague. Fair and reasonable life whats that, on a TV 1 year or 3 years? I also found the article very one sided but lets not forget its John Campbell since when do both sides ever get fairly represented. Its reporting with there opinion thrown in and thats not real reporting now is it???
I think the government should specify how long the expected lifetime of products is. You spend $3000 on a tv but if it breaks after 13 months its not automatically covered or you have to argue to get it fixed? Rubbish. Setting a decent fixed lifetime (electronics maybe 3yrs for a product under $1000 & 5 yrs for over $1000) would also encourage better quality products to be produced and force manufacturers to eliminate 'designed obsolescence' - hence benefits for the environment. Competition will keep the price rises to a minimum. Hmmm from now on I will ask the retailer to write on my receipts what the expected lifetime of the item is so there are no arguments later on...
I purchased a notebook and have used it for business for the past 2 years. I have just discovered things used for business are not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act, so for people in business the extended warranties may be a good idea. This was not addressed at all during the investigation and was very one sided. There are good points to extended warranties, but not necessarily for everyone.
I work for one of the major retailers in NZ, and this negative publicity on Extended Warranties annoys the crap out of me. Why is all the responsibility lumped on to the retailer. I my opinion, if the consumer guerantees act suggests that goods of a certain nature should be covered for up to 5 years, then the government should be forcing the manufacturers to sell the goods with a 5 year cover already on it. To say that all responsibility rest with the retailers is ridiculous. No retailer could afford to replace all goods that fault within a 5 year period. If the retailers or the manufacturers were forced to increase the warranties to a period of 5 years or more, all that would happen is they would have to increase the price of the goods, to cover repair and replacement costs that might occur.