Consumer affairs: Woman demands refund after garage door starts rusting
Consumer Claims Tribunal underlines the need for clearly defined guarantees
Facts of the case
A woman bought a garage door but after just two years, rust stains appeared on the door. The door was covered by a 10-year commercial warranty.
When the consumer complained to the supplier, she was informed that the 10-year warranty was not valid because the door was installed in a coastal area with high salt levels in the air. Consequently, the trader refused to provide the consumer with a remedy as per the commercial guarantee.
Unable to reach an amicable agreement with the seller, the consumer lodged an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs at the MCCAA to initiate a conciliation process. However, despite the office’s intervention, no agreement was reached. As a result, the consumer decided to take her case to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
Initially, the tribunal observed that the consumer was seeking a refund of €2,080, the full amount paid for the garage door. The tribunal also noted that the dispute involved a 10-year commercial warranty, which the trader argued was invalid in this case due to the specific location where the garage door was installed.
In this context, the tribunal emphasised the importance of clearly defining the term ‘guarantee’ in the terms and conditions to prevent consumers from being misled by the appeal of a long warranty.
The tribunal clarified that, in this case, the product’s guarantee was undoubtedly for 10 years, and included specific details as required by consumer legislation. The guarantee outlined the available remedies and listed the parts excluded from the coverage. Specifically, it stated that there was a “10-year manufacturer’s warranty on panels combating rust penetration from inside out”.
The consumer was informed that the warranty is not valid because the door was installed in a coastal area with high salt levels in the air
The tribunal noted that while commercial guarantees are given voluntarily by sellers or manufacturers, once given they become legally binding on the seller issuing the guarantee.
The tribunal also noted that the evidence clearly showed the consumer’s issues were due to lack of quality. In such situations, when the product purchased does not conform to the sales contract, the consumer is entitled to request the termination of the sales contract. In this regard, Article 73 (1) of the Consumer Affairs Act stipulates that:
“Sellers shall deliver goods to the consumer that conform with the sales contract, which goods shall, in particular, where applicable:
“a) Be of the description, type, quantity and quality, and possess the functionality, compatibility, interoperability, and other features, as required by the sales contract;
“b) Be fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which the consumer made known to the seller at the latest at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract; and in respect of which the seller has given acceptance.”
In addition to the above, the specific door was purchased with a 10-year commercial warranty. Any restrictions on the guarantee’s validity should have been communicated to and accepted by both parties.
The tribunal also noted that it was not convinced by the trader’s defence. Given that the garage door came with a 10-year warranty specifically guaranteeing protection against rust penetration, it was unreasonable for rust to appear after just two years.
The tribunal also observed that the trader argued that the garage door only had a two-year guarantee, as the 10-year guarantee did not apply.
However, in this case, the tribunal expected the trader to submit evidence that they had informed the complainant at the time of sale about the guarantee’s limitation since the garage door would be installed in a coastal area with high salt levels in the air. No such evidence was submitted, and the tribunal only had a signed copy of the commercial guarantee before it.
Therefore, in these circumstances, the tribunal had no choice but to accept the consumer’s claim for compensation as legitimate.
The tribunal’s decision
Based on the reasons mentioned above, the tribunal ruled in favour of the consumer’s claim and ordered the defendant company to refund the consumer the sum of €2,080 within 15 days.
Additionally, the tribunal decided that after the refund is issued and the consumer installs a new garage door, the trader may take possession of the original garage door. Finally, the tribunal ruled that the defendant company must cover the expenses associated with the tribunal’s proceedings.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.