ACL - Does it work for consumers?

The extended warranties you purchase are effectively just a money spinner for the company. It is difficult to get them to honor those as well. I never get them and just hope things last as they should. Fortunately have never had my fingers burnt!

1 Like

The legislation is written with the onus on the consumer to enforce their rights, not on business to provide them, noting many companies respond well just because they are good businesses. The most common downside when “prosecuted” is for business to “back their product or service” and perhaps some legal costs, not a penalty sufficient to get their attention, although there are cases that happens.

That being written I have had good outcomes pressing the ACL against a dodgy high end oven 2 years out of a 1 year warranty, and a company selling a subscription service that failed to deliver for 2+ months. After initially being ignored by each I followed the letter of the ACL starting with the formal letter of demand. However, I read about companies that stonewall knowing it unlikely they would be prosecuted for an individual case. There is also ample evidence of companies going into administration or shutting down leaving their customers adrift, only to start a “phoenix company” with the same owners with no corporate history and no liability for past actions. This latter problem is in corporate law, not the ACL.

2 Likes

Regarding my last point, http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/supermarket-recycling-business-liquidated-to-escape-800000-worker-death-fine-20160722-gqbazo.html

1 Like

Hi ,
At the end of the day its the courts determination. Good traders will sort things. Now as the court of “Competent Jurisdiction” does various tests you may end up with a progressive magistrate which embraces consumerism . Then again you may have the one that does not want to open the flood gates. Unfortunately it will be some little consumers going up against the school bully . Good luck keep chipping and keep the bastards honest and accountable.

1 Like

Another case relates to buying two pairs of shoes by mail order from Kogan I chose a size which I thought fitted but the shoes proved to be too large. Kogan refused to exchange them even though they were unworn. I even offered to pay the postage for the exchange. Return is against the Kogan return policy but what about goodwill? Not ever using Kogan again. the legislation did not assist in this case.

I really agree. It is amazing how good faith, ethics, good business practices have gone by the wayside. Since manufacturers build obsolescence in their products it is going very hard to make them adhere to proper functioning of their products. Before, they would give you quite a few years warranty on their goods, now you have to pay for an extended warranty.
They have shifted the onus on you. I think this is really poor business practices
and dishonest. The earth does not benefit from the over use of resources
just more production and more pollution.
Most people will buy a guarantee and some will be lucky to have it honoured others will have to fight to get some sort of proper outcome. But it is a game for the manufacturing and they are may be betting that customers will give up
or absorb their loss by providing a new or repaired item. The permutations are endless. Usually in their favour.

1 Like

TV’s aren’t the only dodgy warranty support. Mobile phones are another expensive piece of electronic equipment for most buyers.
Try to get an OS update for an Android phone and you can forget it. I know this for a fact, having purchased an Agora 4G Pro from KOGAN last October. It’s still under warranty but try to get your Android OS software upgraded and your out of luck.
Anyone you speak too at KOGAN will just shrug their collective shoulders.
My phone only has Android V5.1.1.
Google released V7 this week.
KOGAN won’t update my OS to even V6. If I click on “Update OS” in my phone it tells me I have the latest !!!
After paying over $300 last October I’m now stuck with Android V5 which has more security holes than swiss cheese. I’ve encrypted it to provide some measure of protection.

What a crock of sh*t all the consumer protection turns out to be. None will address this issue because they don’t understand IT or the implications of old software.

The KOGAN TV’s are just as bad. Most, so far as I’m able to determine are running ANDROID with NO OS updates. My buying days from KOGAN are OVER !!

1 Like

Agree on lifespan but also believe the consumer is responsible for the taking care of the item. Eg installing electical devices to stop power surges in the electricity and when storms are about as these are some of the biggest killers of electrical items. Its about time the consumer took some responsibility as well.

I think that would be a good idea. Even if such a database is a little difficult for consumers, it could be useful for companies like Choice and other consumer advocacy groups to develop easy-to-use guidelines and resources for taking manufacturers / vendors to the tribunal, and/or developing stats on cases to encourage more people to take that option.

1 Like

Like warranties on cars
 Usually the 2nd most expensive single purchase a person makes and the warranties are ridiculous, especially considering the safety issues. VW have a 3 year warranty but you’ve got to jump through the hoops for that one AND if you’re unlucky enough and you have a complete fail within 10 years you can throw that car away.
Interestingly, after the warranty end date the resale value drops significantly.

1 Like

Did anything come from this review, or are we still stuck with the same old mess as before?

1 Like

Hi @cameron_eldridge,

According to the Australian Consumer Law Review - Final Report released in April last year, the consumer affairs ministers were scheduled to meet in late 2017 to determine a consolidated position. I haven’t seen any news on the issue so far though.

2 Likes

Hi @cameron_eldridge, work is ongoing on this.

The ACCC is currently working on a project with the intention of updating their guidance on how long products should last (beyond warranty periods), and the difference between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ failures.

CHOICE is also in the early stages of a research project on consumer guarantees and consumer expectations, that we hope to use to produce our own guidance. In short - watch this space!

4 Likes

In the context of this thread, is that really the problem though?

For me, at least, the problem is there’s no way for consumers to easily execute their rights under the ACL. Even if the ACCC issues guidance as to appropriate warranty periods, the action, and problem, still remains the same for consumers, that they need to undertake a lengthy and expensive (relatively speaking) court process to actually get that.

1 Like

Your comment about state consumer affairs offices is right on the money but I can only speak of it from my particular state. In all my years I have never had a positive outcome in making a complaint to them. They are offices of consumer affairs by name only. I call them the armchair detectives or the telephone detectives because they never leave the office. Would not bother to contact them about anything, they are only a distraction when you could be following other lines of inquiry.

1 Like

In regard to several threads on the Choice site including about Lenovo, Samsung, TVs, [quote=“darylhutchins, post:1, topic:15011”]
You think Samsung is bad 
 try Lenovo.
[/quote][quote=“CaitlinB, post:1, topic:14977”]
Have had a gut full of Samsung
[/quote]

We continue to see the line/statement that the ACCC does not deal with individual cases and uses them to decide if a particular issue is worth more followup. I then read a reply by @PhilT that indicated a site works closely with the ACCC and they report breaches on their site to the ACCC to get action:

“We also work closely with the ACCC and reserve the right to submit all our findings to them. Note that ACCC has fined a number of companies for fake review submissions.
The ACCC can issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened certain consumer protection laws. For serious misconduct, the ACCC can seek court penalties. The maximum penalty is $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a body corporate, per breach.”

If what is stated above is true why aren’t the ACCC issuing more “infringement notice[s] where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened certain consumer protection laws”. Why are they so reticent to take action? If more action was taken, I think more positive results from complaints would result and less legal hardship for consumers would transpire.

But the question could be asked is the ACCC really only there to act as a circuit breaker to protect most businesses from consumer action and that they only act when the situation is so dire that inaction would bring politicians into a discomfort zone.

4 Likes

Wink wink, know what you mean, know what you mean! I myself have called the ACCC ‘window dressing’ on more than one occasion.

4 Likes

I agree alf BUT NCAT do not publish decisions made in the tribunal unless there is a bigger public interest in doing so. They now have a complaints list but it really doesn’t tell you anything. The reason? They all hide behind the Privacy Legislation. I had a major issue (for me) with a builder. I took action in NCAT four times (the builder just wouldn’t show up, then appeal the decision on the grounds it wasn’t fair to him etc etc), won every time and got a financial judgement. NCAT cannot enforce their own orders so off to court you go. I did. The builder ignored orders from the court. Back I went. Got a garnishee order on his bank account (he’d emptied it because he had to be informed that was what I was doing!). Back to court I went - I even had to go to Federal Court - TWICE! I won every single case yet still the builder ignored all payment orders. 6 years on and I still have not received the compensation. At all stages the ‘rights’ of the builder took far more precedence than me his victim. Upshot was, even if you are judged to have a case, ACL does not protect you at all. State bodies cannot enforce their own orders, and in the case where you have a contract with a business (even when that business is a one man band and the owner does the work, sells the goods etc) you cannot sue the individual for poor work. This builder had no penalty to pay and continued working as before. Meanwhile I was out of pocket not only buy the amount I had paid him but I had to have the work completely redone by another builder. I found out later that he had been taken to NCAT (at least) twice before and lost each time. You cannot find this information on his registration. Oh yes I forgot to mention, he was registered and certified by Fair Trading! As Mr Bumble said in Oliver Twist: “The Law is an ass!” and consumer law does not protect the consumer at all.

2 Likes

I too had this experience.

Many years ago, after winning judgements against a builder, he declared himself bankrupt. Apparently ALL the assets were in his wife’s name so he lost nothing of real value. I was told I had no chance of getting any money ever.

And guess what? He was back in business for himself the following week using a retired builder’s licence.

No cost to him, yet I’ve got a home that needed fixing, and I’m out of pocket big time.

No help from any of the government bodies at any level.

2 Likes

One would think part of bankruptcy should be a requirement to pay judgements against you, and that should be possible on a scheme modelled on HECS repayments. It gives the bankrupt a chance to start again and it gives the damaged party a shot at getting something back. But the concept of equitable justice in the civil system has always been too hard since many business people and wealthy use bankruptcy as a tool to protect their assets, and the pollies salute them.

Edit: Where this falls apart is that the legal system treats a commercial entity as a person when it suits, but not as a person when it suits. Hence if someone has a legal entity more complex than an individual sole trader they bankrupt as a non-entity. Simplistically if the builder was Builder Inc, Builder Inc can bankrupt or go into administration and leave everyone with nothing, and Mr.Builder can start New Builder Inc that has no obligation for Builder Inc’s debts or dodgy practices, aka phoenixed company. Whether corporate officers should be held liable in civil law for corporate debts can be an interesting discussion in itself.

3 Likes