TigerRob wrote: Despite being (just) out of warranty Draytek UK have kindly agreed to repair my modem FOC.

Well, you probably feel bad for playing lawer and threatening them with "Sale of Goods act" then Asking politely is always the best first resort IMHO.

admin wrote:

TigerRob wrote: Despite being (just) out of warranty Draytek UK have kindly agreed to repair my modem FOC.

Well, you probably feel bad for playing lawer and threatening them with "Sale of Goods act" then Asking politely is always the best first resort IMHO.

I completely agree. Being polite and reasonable is *always* necessary. But also nothing wrong with being firm, stating your expected outcome, and showing that you know your rights. I'll never know if they would have offered the FOC out-of-warranty repair if I hadn't shown that I knew my rights under SOGA. (BTW I don't think I ever threatened them, but I do note your smiley)

TigerRob wrote: I completely agree. Being polite and reasonable is *always* necessary. But also nothing wrong with being firm, stating your expected outcome, and showing that you know your rights.

Well, IMHO that contradicts itself.

Contrast in a restaurant:

"Please may I have a glass of tap water?"
"Please may I have a tapwater; you have a legal obligation to provide it FOC and I know my rights..."

So, no there's NO need to state your rights with the implicit threat of legal recourse. I'd always much rather someone did something because that's what they like/choose to do, rather than they are obliged....

TigerRob wrote: I'll never know if they would have offered the FOC out-of-warranty repair

That's the point. You might have asked and had a happy experience and been impressed but you never gave them the chance, so you don't know if it's because you were 'threatening' or because they would have done it anyway. " I'll never know if the man had a gun.. I shot him first, just in case..."

TigerRob wrote: (BTW I don't think I ever threatened them, but I do note your smiley)

It's an implicit threat - if you claim rights and they are not upheld, you have recourse - a bit like showing your gun in your belt when you think someone might start a fight (even though they've shown no sign of it!). See my example above - IMHO it's just rude. You go in with the assumption that either the company doesn't know the law or might try to avoid it, that their own policies/service doesn't exceed their legal obligations or that the member of staff needs the sinister threat of law to encourage them. Think what it's like to be on the receiving end. Beyond that, the SoGA was actually superceded and it's not as simple as you make out.

I've worked in shops; customers come in "I know my rights..." - " yeah, so do we, matey, but we also like to keep customers happy where appropriate/possible so why not rely on good will before you tell us the law..."

Edited to correct errors in what I've said, having reviewed my communications with Draytek UK ...

admin wrote:

TigerRob wrote: I completely agree. Being polite and reasonable is *always* necessary. But also nothing wrong with being firm, stating your expected outcome, and showing that you know your rights.

Well, IMHO that contradicts itself.

I've probably not been clear in this thread, but I think you are making assumptions about what I said. I did mention SoGA in my communications. I stated that I wanted to get the device repaired; that I didn't know if the device was under warranty as I could find conflicting statements about their policy (website states 24 months, manual for V120 suggests only 12 months); and that even if it was out of warranty then I hoped that they would consider a FoC repair as I didn't consider 15 months to be reasonable life span for such a device and I didn't think that SoGA would consider it a reasonable life span either.

I guess you're right that there's an implicit threat there, as the wording was chosen to resonate with the wording from SoGA, but IMHO it's pretty weak.

admin wrote: Beyond that, the SoGA was actually superseded and it's not as simple as you make out.

Yes, SoGA was superseded in October 2015 by the Consumer Rights Act(CRA), but SoGA applies in this case as the sale was prior to that date. And yes, if SoGA needed to be invoked then my contract is with the vendor and not the manufacturer. And yes, I understand that the burden of proof would lie with me and not the vendor.

admin wrote: I've worked in shops; customers come in "I know my rights..." - " yeah, so do we, matey, but we also like to keep customers happy where appropriate/possible so why not rely on good will before you tell us the law..."

I've spent plenty of my time in retail too and understand how it puts people's backs up to come in all guns blazing. I can only apologise if my choice of words appeared heavy handed.

Any way around I'm happy with the outcome, and I'm happy that I didn't do anything unreasonable. I'll give Draytek the benefit of the doubt that they would have taken on an out-of-warranty repair even if I hadn't mentioned SoGA. Unfortunately in this day and age this isn't an assumption that can be made of most companies.

Rob.

Entirely reasonable; I commend your response here.