Moan of the Day – Warranty/Guarantee Rights

When a product is replaced, should the replacement be covered only for as long as the warranty/guarantee afforded to the original product, or should the new product be covered for a year from the date it replaced the faulty product?

I am presently trying to get a product I bought replaced due to a fault that has occurred, through no fault of mine – even though they would like to think the opposite – after only 3 months of use. This has caused me to research my rights as a consumer, and to what the warranty actually covers. During this research I was astounded to read that the replacement product does not come with its own new warranty, it comes under the same contract as the original purchase.

Apparently a manufacturers warranty can have whatever terms they like – of course within reason – on the goods as there is no legal obligation for manufacturers to actually give any kind of a warranty. So that is why some will give a new warranty from an orginal purchase date and others from the replacement date.

On one of the forum sites I visited someone commented, “think about it, you could take it back every 11 months for a lifetime warranty”. Surely decent people wouldn’t do that? Surely we just want an item to be in good working order? And it could’nt be replaced if it wasn’t faulty again, so it makes no sense why a new warranty can’t be issued. In New Zealand they allow a replacement product to receive a new warranty.  On same forum another informed readers that if you were to get a refund for the original item you could then buy another of the same product, which would come with a full warranty. That’s certainly worth bearing in mind.

The way I see it is, if the replacement product I receive is also faulty I should be able to take it back to the retailer and ask for a repair, replacement or refund as a new item. Does anyone else agree?

For info:  The Sale of Goods Act offers protection against faulty goods even when the manufacturer’s guarantee has run out. The act says goods must last a reasonable time. That can be anything up to six years from the date of purchase (five years in Scotland).



Moan of the Day – Are you paying for Surface Water?

Did you know that you might be being charged for Surface Water Drainage by Southern Water?

Now it might not just be Southern Water. (I’m with them so that’s why I’ve only mentioned them.) We found this out because we recently had to have Southern Water out due to flooding in the garage. Through discussions it turns out they aren’t actually responsible for the Surface Water Drainage. However, we have up until this week, been charged by them for this service.

On the old paper statements we were informed as to what exactly they were taking payment for. Everything was itemised. On our new statements it just says “Wastage”. Apparently, it is each home owner’s responsibility to question their bill. But how can you question something you don’t even know you are being charged for?

To find out whether your property/road should, or not, be paying for Surface Water Drainage, simply go onto the Southern Water site. Set up a login, and fill in a form specifically for working out whether you should be paying for Surface Water or not. It’s as simple as that. They will only back date you to 2015 – which I think is appalling – but we have just received a refund of £69 for 2 past years, and the current year. Surely that’s not to be sniffed at?

Don’t sit back and do nothing. It is your money and not theirs.

Moan for the Day – Older Drivers

Omg! Seriously!  When is 30mph not 30mph? When it’s a bloody 40mph zone.

So, once again, I got caught behind someone – well two people actually – who didn’t think they should be driving at a safe speed. Not speeding, quite the opposite in fact, crawling along the back roads.

One of the roads out of the city has changed from 50mph to 40mph as, I believe, the residents requested the change. This road is easily driven at 45mph, and it is actually really difficult keeping your speed to 40mph…..not if you’re an older driver though quite obviously. In fact, they seem to find it perfectly easy to keep their speed to well under the 40mph limit. Annoyingly!

Today the second “slow driver” drove so slowly, on roads that are difficult to overtake on, that the van driver behind me became so impatient that they overtook both of us, barely scrapping past, and narrowly missing the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Now I   know this was a d..k move on their part, but I honestly understand why they overtook. My own patience was at boiling point.

Some will say that the older generation are better drivers, and have far less accidents, than that of the younger generation. Statistics supposedly backing up this evidence. But I found something very interesting today in a report by The Guardian online in October 2013 called “Dangerous Drivers: how old are they?”

The Transport Research Laboratory used their findings, backed by a a paper published by L.G. Goldstein called ‘Youthful drivers as a special safety problem’, to try and reduce accidents by suggesting that the probationary licence should be issued from the age of 18 (you can currently apply 3 months before your 17th birthday) in order to reduce road accidents. They gave three statistics: a) “young and novice drivers are overrepresented in road collisions in GB and worldwide”, b) “22% of fatalities on GBs roads in 2011 occurred in collisions involving a driver aged 17-24”, and c) “in 65% of these collisions the fatal injuries were sustained by passengers or road users other than the young driver”. But the paper backing up a) was published in 1972!

The Guardian continued their research and found data from the Department of Transport (26.09.13) that did not support the findings above. It found that more accidents were caused by those aged 70 and over. It went on to say that in 2013 of the 595,364 young drivers in the UK 10,235 were involved in accidents – about 2 in every 100 (2%). Compare this to the 4m older drivers holding a licence (representing 10%), many of whom are actually unlikely to drive, 6% had reported having an accident.

And in between 1989 and 2009 the risk of fatality was higher for older adults aged over 70 than younger ones. (I think ‘c’ and this statement are confusing. It doesn’t actually say what it means.)

To date over 500,000 signatures have been logged trying to get the licence laws changed. Currently over 70s have to reapply every 3 years for a licence. They fill in a form that they have declared the information to be true. Surely this cannot be correct? Even if they have to get a signature from a doctor, how will be this prove they are capable of handling a lethal weapon? A doctor will only know their physical, maybe mental, wellbeing. They won’t have a clue how the patient handles a car. Merely taking an eye test will not show whether you are a capable driver. It will not show what their responses are to situations. This is why they need to be retested. If not on the road, in a simulator.

My parents are both in their late 70s. My mum no longer drives, although she threatens it sometimes (and I get very angry as she has back, neck, shoulder and knee ailments). My dad, although cautious, is a good driver. He doesn’t drive slowly though “just because he’s scared of the other traffic on the road”. My father-in-law is turning 84 on Sunday. He is fabulous for his age. Very fit and has a full set of marbles. He still drives but I actually  feel physically sick with his weaving, stopping and starting, faster and slower, driving.  I see old people leaving bingo and getting in their cars, barely being able to turn their necks to see if traffic is coming before pulling out. Some scare the life out of me, and I am often heard yelping with dismay/amazement at their lack of understanding of what they are doing.

I apologise that this isn’t my usual jovial self, lol, but I am fed up with the older generation telling me that it is the young generation who are causing all the problems on the road.

Moan for the Day – Refunds

So should a faulty garment, product, item mean an automatic refund?

In the eyes of the law, and under consumer rights, the answer is yes. I think so too. Then why doesn’t the fashion shop Select?

I recently bought some cheap, diamanté shoes in a branch in Maidstone. I tried the shoes on, on the floor, and didn’t realise they were missing stones until I got them out to show my daughter.

Disappointed I asked my husband to take them back to the branch of Select in Portsmouth – as we were only visiting Maidstone – when he went to work on the Monday. Ideally I wanted an exchange but unfortunately, the Portsmouth branch didn’t have the shoes in stock. So hubby asked for a refund. This is where the fun began…..not!

Apparently, Select’s company policy is to return the product – in this case my shoes – to Head Office. I know, seriously? There is no doubt they are faulty. Only a fool would say it wasn’t. This really frustrated my husband, which I’m sure you can understand, so he asked for the Head Office address.

So that evening, my daughter composed a letter for me – a little too polite for my liking – and I added the photos of the faulty shoes.

Last night I received an email back from Select saying:

“Regarding your query, as you have expressed that your item is at fault, (didn’t express, I sent photo evidence) we advise that you take the item back in store, your item will be sent off to Head Office by the store staff. When your item is received at Head Office it will be reviewed by our Garment Technologist (seriously, who employs, on a wage obviously, a Garment Technologist?). If your item is found to have a general manufacturing fault and is deemed faulty we will be happy to assist you with a refund.

Just to let you know this process can take up to 14 working days to inspect and contact you with an outcome.”

Who else thinks this is a load of bullocks? Seriously, have you ever heard of such insanity? It’s not even a well-written email. I’ve changed commas to full stops, but I haven’t bothered changing their grammar mistakes. I have talked to Trading Standards and they believe the company is stretching the rules. Hopefully, I will hear from them again tomorrow to see whether anything can be done to claim a refund in store rather than needlessly sending it to the Head Office.

Can’t believe they are allowed to get away with this. So, needless to say, I won’t be shopping in Select ever again. Will you?

Moan for the day – BBC Interlude ‘Adverts”

How annoying are they? I mean, what’s with people walking into the sea and then stopping to pose for a photo. Or birdwatchers standing in the reeds?

I, like many I’m sure, thought that the BBC didn’t do adverts. But surely these are just as bad as an advert? They’re not actually advertising anything, but they appear too often, don’t change regularly enough and are certainly just as annoying.

Although the £147 TV Licence covers all TV channels since 1 September 2016, it is used to fund everything the BBC produces. And I for one would rather the money wasn’t wasted on ‘stupid’ people standing around gawping at a camera.

What do you think?

Moan for the day…..Parenting

Argh! How frustrating is it to be in the same vicinity as a moaning (careful!) child who can’t get their own way?

I was in a charity shop this morning (what me? how common) when a family of 3 came in to browse. The little girl was about 6/7. She had noticed a pair of summer wedges and was determined she was going to have them. She tried them on, took them off, then promptly handed them to her mum and said; “they fit me, I want them”. Her mum took the shoes off her daughter and told her she was ‘just worried they would cause a blister’.

For some reason, the ‘little girl’ (said through gritted teeth) began to moan, and whine, and scream, and pretend cry – we all know that one girls don’t we? – because she wanted the shoes and her mother wasn’t giving her any indication as to whether she was going to buy them for her or not. The mother certainly kept them in her hand with other potential purchases. All the time I’m thinking ‘if you are going to buy the girl the shoes why don’t you actually get her to put them on so you can see whether they fit her or not and whether there is the possibility of them causing blisters – not take a 6 year olds word for it’. In response to the whining child, the mother and ‘father’ walked around the shop expressing every now and again “oh …… what are you doing?” or “you’re making a silly noise darling” taking no real effort to deal with her.

Why, because they did buy the little brat the shoes, did the mother not say she was going to get the shoes? This would’ve stopped all the pathetic attempts to cry etc. It’s not difficult, it’s call PARENTING. If she hadn’t planned to buy them she just needed to be firm and tell her “no, they don’t fit properly and they will hurt you. If you continue to moan I will put these things back too and you will leave the shop with nothing”.

You are their parent, you are not their friend. Your job as a parent is to teach them life skills, and one of them is that you can’t have everything you want. Whether it’s because they don’t fit etc., or you just can’t afford it/them etc.

I don’t believe in telling kids “No” without explaining to them why. If you give them the reason why they can work that through in their head. Just “no” leaves it too open for them. And for goodness sake, don’t give into constant pressure like “please, please, please……”. You are not teaching them anything, except, they can get their own way if they persist.

As my daughter used to say when her friends would tell her to ‘ask your mum again’ she would say; “When my mum says ‘No’ she means ‘No’. If she says ‘Maybe or I’ll think about it’, she’ll get back to me in her own time with her answer, and if she says ‘Yes’ it means just that”. They couldn’t understand this. They would say “oh, we just keep going on and on at them/her and they/she gives in eventually”. Yeah! Of course, that’s good parenting – NOT!




My moan for the day – Leave it untucked!

How annoying is it that a duvet is tucked in when you stay at a hotel?

You might like yours tucked in – keeping you all snug – and I would love to hear from you if you do, but I hate it. The first thing my husband and I do is pull the duvet out from the mattress. However, doing this also shows that the sheet isn’t long and/or wide enough to fit the mattress itself. Seriously, why not? Have they replaced the mattress which is now deeper, but not the sheets? I can’t see any other explanation for this. And why don’t they use fitted sheets? Surely this would stop me being attacked by the thing during the night.

I believe sheets should be tucked in, and duvets laid loosely across the bed. What do you think?