I had a 3.6kW solar inverter installed in 2011. The inverter failed in 2015 after 4 years and was replaced under the 5 year warranty with a new inverter of the same model. This second inverter has now failed after only 3 years. The inverter is covered by a 5 year warranty but the company are stating that they will not cover the inverter under warranty as their warranty starts at the original installation date (in 2011, 7 years ago) and not the date at which the inverter was replaced (which was only 3 years ago).
They are proposing to charge me $1300 to replace the inverter with the same model. Which has already failed twice now.
I would expect the life of an inverter to be far more than only 3 years given that solar installations are a long term proposition. I note that it has been 7 years since the original installation date but I would not have expected two failures within 7 years.
Can you please advise where I stand under consumer law/ACCC on this one please as I would like the inverter to be replaced under warranty (again)?
Thanks
Solar inverter failed twice in 7yrs. What are my rights under consumer law?
Comments
- 1
- 2
nope
If something is replaced it still has a statutory warranty. The seller can't get around that.
Not the sellers issue.
Even the ACCC doesn't agree with you.
You can claim a remedy directly from the manufacturer or importer if the goods do not meet one or more of the following consumer guarantees:
acceptable quality
@JimmyF: It's good that you're reading the ACCC site, not so good that you're quoting something not relevant to this thread. Keep reading…
Mine eldest is the law Prof.
BUT acting as Solomon ;-) Unless this inverter was cheap & nasty, 7 years appears light for a 'reasonable' lifespan.
In FAIRNESS our consumer has also been inconvenienced twice now - what value for time & money lost??I understood Warranty to be overridden by ACL??? So irrelevant/subservient?
Shouldn't the provider just suck it up?
Else they might be hit by legal, as well as consumer out-of-pocket costs.
I understand ACL allows for 'reasonable' consumer expenses - eg transport necessary to return faulty items etc.
Of course under Limited Liability a provider might simply go bankrupt - some do ;-)yes, I haven't bothered mentioning the 6 weeks lost time and money for the first inverter failure. And now already another 4 weeks lost time and money for the second failure.
Yeah, not to mention the compensation for emotional stress too. Maybe even punitive damages for selling such an average product.
Consumer law is not the same as manufacturer warranty! It doesn't matter whether the manufacturer offers a 1 year warranty or a 10 year warranty. If the goods are replaced, they must still meet the consumer law requirements of acceptable quality. An inverter that lasts 2 or 3 years is not of acceptable quality.
The manufacturer may provide a limited warranty ON TOP of and IN ADDITION to your consumer law rights, which they did, by offering a 5 year limited warranty. That has since expired. But the manufacturer cannot take away your consumer law rights, which apply to the replacement as much as they did the original purchase. This is part of the protection for consumers around "lemon" products, of which this product sounds like it is one. Its not fair for a company to keep replacing a flaky product until the limited warranty expires, and then dust their hands of it - the consumer law still applies to the first and to the last one.
The only think I will add, is that by offering a 5 year warranty, they are giving evidence that they expect the product to last longer than 5 years. Which gives you more weight to reasonably claim that the replacement should have lasted longer than that, even when the warranty has expired.
Right - but in this case, the inverter OP purchased has effectively lasted 7 years. They can argue that that's still unreasonably short for a $10,000 inverter, and OP might be right - I've no idea. But the consumer guarantees come with the purchase of the product, which means it also runs from the purchase date. OP doesn't somehow get an definite supply of inverters just because they each, separately, fail before the consumer guarantee. OP makes one purchase, OP gets one consumer guarantee. That's simple, right?
I can't believe I've had to explain this now almost a dozen times.
“Your rights under the consumer guarantees do not have a specific expiry date and can apply even after any warranties you’ve got from a business have expired”
I’m not sure where you’re reading that limitation from. My understanding is each replacement must also fulfil the consumer laws around quality. So yes, an indefinite series of replacements. After each major failure, the customer has the right to pursue a full refund from the retailer.
Source: worked in a fruit related it company retail store
I’ve worked in a retail I.T company, supplied thousands of laptops to businesses and customers, there are models that just have terrible reliability, and like many had the min. 1 year warranty. Anything past that initial 1 year from purchase date, it’s up to the customer to take it up with courts and prove that the product should’ve lasted reasonably longer than the time it did. I can also say that I’ve only ever seen this successfully done once, on a 3k+ MSI laptop that was a paperweight after 2 years.
There’s no chain of replacements, else you’ve be able to have an endless chain of replacements. You get the original warranty provided in addition to base consumer guarantees, the only recourse is that it should’ve lasted longer overall, and not from the replacement date.
You buy a product and expect it to last a certain amount of time, replacements are to ensure it lasts that duration, the consumer law isn’t there to continually refresh your expectations for how long each of the replacements should last, only to ensure you have a product that you purchased for the time you expected it to last.
@Chewiebacca:
My understanding is that consumer law protections are there to ensure you receive a service and or product of acceptable quality. A continual series of lemons is not acceptable to anyone - the seller loses money, and the customer loses their time and sanity.After a major failure the customer is entitled to choose to pursue a full refund. After which they could have repurchased the same product, in which case their warranty would have restarted. Why should they be disadvantaged if they choose a replacement instead?
I am just explaining it as it happened. Consumer law protections are indeed to ensure you receive what you intended and expected to purchase. When you purchase a product you don't expect it to last an indefinite amount of time, you have your own reasonable estimations and also presumably information from the sales person. A cheap budget laptop (~500?) maybe 2 years tops, it's for a court to decide ultimately but it's a point you work from.
The law works not to ensure every single one of your replacement laptops are not lemons, but to ensure you receive the product/service you initially purchased and to fulfill the expectations you had. The consumer law has nothing to do with "my replacement should also last two years", as you didn't purchase the replacement. Logic says it should, however, consumer protection laws do not promote an endless string of replacements.
Like I said, in practice I only ever saw one laptop get refunded past a 2 year mark, it's not easy to prove either a major failure or that the laptop "should've lasted longer".
The moral of the story is that it is very advisable to take your money instead.
@Chewiebacca: I have seen businesses behaving as the one you described did (1 year warranty -> bad luck) hit with huge fines and FORCED by LEGAL ORDER to EXTEND their warranties up to 3,4,5 years on products and honour them without complaint when customers require repairs & or service.
That is, the legal order obtained applied to all past & future customers, not just the person that made the legal claim.
@Chewiebacca: The states have Fair Trading tribunals. My biggest matter was a two year old $11000 dollar bill from Optus for 8 mobiles. They had sold us an old plan that their contracted billing supplier was unable to adjust. $60 tribunal fee and the bill was wiped.
The only think I will add, is that by offering a 5 year warranty, they are giving evidence that they expect the product to last longer than 5 years.
and the OP got 7 years out of their purchase.
I am trying to be reasonable here, not buck the system, or obtain anything that is unfair.
Paying $10K+ on a solar system I didn't expect the inverter to fail 2 times in the first 7 years.
I checked the dates and the 2nd inverter has only lasted 2.5yrs.
That to me is unacceptable reliability and quality of the product.Here is an example provided by NSW Fair trading.
"The consumer guarantees that applied to the original goods will apply to the replacements.For example, a consumer buys a new mobile phone. Due to a problem, the supplier replaces it. Consumer guarantees apply to the replacement phone as if it were a new mobile phone."
Paying $10K+ on a solar system
Yes for a solar system, not an inverter.
This system includes panels, labour, mounting gear, the inverter and a few other items.
Your inverter was only about $2k of the purchase price and its lasted 7 years.
No, the first unit lasted 4 years, and the second only 3 years.
Doesn't matter as the OP didn't pay for the replacement…. So this statement is correct
Your inverter was only about $2k of the purchase price and its lasted 7 years.
OP Paid $2k for a inverter and got 7 years of service out of the purchase price
I checked the dates and the 2nd inverter has only lasted 2.5yrs.
That to me is unacceptable reliability and quality of the product.The thing is see, you didn't buy two inverters, you bought the first one. And you keep quoting basically the same sentence, but you're still misreading it:
The consumer guarantees that applied to the original goods will apply to the replacements.
Note - it doesn't say the replacement gets a separate or new set of consumer guarantees. It effectively inherits the consumer guarantee you receive when purchasing the original product.
Due to a problem, the supplier replaces it. Consumer guarantees apply to the replacement phone as if it were a new mobile phone.
Again, that's to differentiate this if it's replaced with a refurbished unit - the supplier can't then say: "it's a refurbished unit and so you don't get the benefit of any consumer guarantees" - you still do, but it's still the same consumer guarantee as you received with the purchase of the first, new, product.
And you ARE trying to get an unfair advantage. You purchased the one product once, 7 years ago. To say that you should expect that product, including warranty replacements, to last longer because the supplier abid by their warranty is utterly nonsensical. You didn't pay anything for the replacement, why should you be any better off?
not sure how much clearer this can be. "Consumer guarantees apply to the replacement phone as if it were a new mobile phone".
not sure how much clearer the advice I was given directly from the ACCC and WA Consumer Protection was that new inverter has a separate consumer guarantee that starts again as it is a new product."Consumer guarantees apply to the replacement phone as if it were a new mobile phone"
It is clear. You're the one who's managing to get it wrong. Consumer guarantees basically don't apply to used goods. That's why it says "as if it were a new mobile phone". You paid for one product, one time. Your consumer guarantees run from that purchase. That's it. It is simple. And yet here we are.
EDIT: Look I'll make it even simpler. Under the consumer guarantees, for certain faults suppliers can repair items instead of replacing them. Would you take a 5 year old product, get it repaired, and then expect it to work for as long as a fully new product? No. Now imagine your inverter was repaired instead… by replacing all of its components.
EDIT II Since I refuse to touch this thread after this comment, I'm going to add a few more points. From the ACCC itself:
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees…
Under the Australian Consumer Law, when you buy products and services they come with automatic guarantees
Note the "WHEN" and the "BUY". You bought the inverter once, 7 years ago.
you're confusing yourself mate
Agree here.
The OPs argument should not be that the replacement should re-start his original warranty.
His argument should be that for the price he paid he expected that the units would last 10+ years.
@Michegianni: But the price they paid was for a TOTAL system install, panels, labour, inverter etc.
As the OP refuses to name the inverter, we can only assume its some cheap and nasty product.
"Look I'll make it even simpler. Under the consumer guarantees, for certain faults suppliers can repair items instead of replacing them. Would you take a 5 year old product, get it repaired, and then expect it to work for as long as a fully new product? No. Now imagine your inverter was repaired instead… by replacing all of its components."
In the repair case, with a competent repairer, you would expect it to last even longer considering it has been inspected and tested. A proper job report should be demanded. The repaired components would have a statutory warranty equivalent to the original product. A further repair of another part of the product outside of the original warranty would need to be paid for.
Here's my interpretation of ACL
You bought one product, that product is subject to both warranty and ACL. Your replacement product is only subject to the remaining warranty of the first product but ACL still applies as a brand new product.
So in your case you still have a right to state that the replacement product has not lasted of reasonable time. Essentially you've been given a lemon of a replacement product that's meant reasonably last x amount of years.That is exactly my position. Well summarised.
It doesn't matter. OP bought it once, OP is entitled to one consumer guarantee. OP can - if he wants - instead elect to receive a refund and take his money elsewhere if he thinks it's a major defect. It basically works that for example, you're expected to get 10 years usage out of $10,000 paid for a product. So if it fails within that 10 year period, you get a replacement so that in total you still get the 10 years usage you should expect. But the 10 year period, or whatever period, runs once from when you made the purchase, because you only paid the price once.
I thought you weren’t touching this thread again!
I know. I have no self control.
Many purchasers of solar systems are going to find that their low cost inverters are going to fail sooner rather than later.
$1300 for an inverter is on the low end.Italy isn't known for it's high quality inverters.
Btw. It is now common to oversize panels to inverter capacity. This is more efficient but also gets more capacity than the grid operators allow. This will limit feed in to say 5kW but the system could be 7.2kW of panels.
Ok, I lied. Since people are still confused and disagreeing, here's the actual text of the law:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00375/Html/Volu…
The relevant provision for this argument is clause 54, titled "54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality", which says:
(1) If:
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and (b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
The definition for "acceptable quality" is in the next paragraph under (2), but that's not important. What is important is that it starts with:
If a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer…
Now, the words used are defined in clause 2, "Definitions", where you'll find it says:
supply, when used as a verb, includes:
(a) in relation to goods—supply (including re‑supply) by way of sale, exchange, lease, hire or hire‑purchase...Note it doesn't make any mention of the word "supply" to include the meaning "supplying by way of a replacement unit".
So in this specific example, since there was only the one sale, the supply of the goods happened when OP purchased the inverter, and at no other point, and so the only consumer guarantee that exists, is the one that came into effect when OP made the purchase.
The replacement unit is still covered by a consumer guarantee - but it's still the consumer guarantee which arose when OP made the purchase. I hope this settles it.
Nope. Disagree
Its a matter for the courts to decide.
Not for an OB contributor to decide.Well, yes obviously. That's what I've said above too. But the words of the law still mean something.
Was just editing my post when you replied.
I agree with you but whether OP is covered by this consumer guarantee is a matter for the courts to decide and tens of thousands of dollars and maybe not in favour of OP.
How can you disagree to text directly out of legislation ?
Courts need to decide, sure - but based on this text from legislation what else could they possibly decide ?
While I understand your interpretation, the law is quite clear on this. A replacement provided by the manufacturer is very clearly an act of re-supply, which is in and of itself a 'supply' within the meaning of section 2. So there is theoretically an infinite amount of replacements under the law if each one does not meet the acceptable quality standard (i.e. must keep functioning for a reasonable period); this is assuming that the consumer elects for a replacement (and that stock/parts still exist), instead of a refund (which is probably advisable if the product keeps failing). The rationale behind this is simple: under your interpretation, if a phone has a two year reasonable life span, and breaks with one day remaining in the period, the manufacturer could just give them a lemon phone and once that inevitably breaks shortly after the two year period elapses, they could just point to the fact that the original phone only had a two year warranty. This is clearly a perverse outcome and exactly what the Consumer Law is trying to protect consumers against.
Any supply of goods has to independently meet the acceptable quality threshold, backdated to the supply of that particular good (i.e. ignoring any previous supplies). If it is anything to the contrary, dodgy operators would be getting a massive windfall.
I guarantee you that this is the correct interpretation, and as the OP has said, has been confirmed by ACCC and the WA Consumer Protection office.
A replacement provided by the manufacturer is very clearly an act of re-supply, which is in and of itself a 'supply' within the meaning of section 2.
Sigh. The law says:
"supply (including re‑supply) by way of sale, exchange, lease, hire or hire‑purchase"
Tell me how providing a replacement unit is a sale, exchange, lease, hire, or hire-purchase.
The rationale behind this is simple: under your interpretation, if a phone has a two year reasonable life span, and breaks with one day remaining in the period, the manufacturer could just give them a lemon phone and once that inevitably breaks shortly after the two year period elapses, they could just point to the fact that the original phone only had a two year warranty. This is clearly a perverse outcome and exactly what the Consumer Law is trying to protect consumers against.
That's not perverse at all. If your phone lasted one more day and then died, you wouldn't get a replacement at all. How are you any worse off under your "perverse" interpretation?
Did you not say that you had made your LAST comment [on this] SOME TIME AGO?
LOL if so ;-)
Even were you to have specialist legal expertise in this area, in practice judges on our highest courts still, all too frequently. manage to disagree amongst themselves :(
Are you expressing more than just a personal interpretation/view?
Mine is guided by "The Checkout" lawyers, & others.
Apple replaces 'faulty' products. VW needing litigation?I might consider our [British] adversarial legal system an Ass - overly expensive & complicated; with little certainty of a 'fair' outcome.
The continental 'investigative' system we resort to in our "ROYAL Commissions" far preferable.I'm somewhat amazed that decent consumer protection has been legislated by pollies.
Can't see the Coalition representing anything other than big money - & THEMSELVES!It's not an exchange?
I assume the supplier kept the defective unit.@serapax: No, it wouldn't be classified as an exchange. "Exchange" would be if, instead of paying money, you got the product by way of some kind of barter (or trade-in) deal.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/i-wish-i-ha…
Similar to what OP is going through.
Short version:
fitbit 1 year warranty.
fitbit band broke. replaced under warranty.
band broke again. replaced under warranty.
third one broke after 1 year warranty but within year of replacement. Fitbit refused to replace under warranty.
Went to ACCC, fitbit replaced once educated on requirements under consumer guarantee.You can indefinitely get replacements under consumer law if something keeps breaking before expected. If an original new product has a 5 year (voluntary) warranty, one would expect a brand new replacement would last at least 5 years. If the seller does not expect the replacement to last 5 years, they should offer a refund.
The original (voluntary) warranty does not get extended when a unit is replaced. But consumer law expects the new replaced one to last as long as original one. This is to protect consumers from getting a lemon as replacement. But also gives sellers an opportunity to provide replacement rather than a complete refund - otherwise consumers would choose a complete refund every time and go buy something newer and better.
@fourofjacks: Fitbit gave a voluntary undertaking. It's not a binding interpretation of the law on any count - I'd even say it's more of a PR move than a legal one, being mired in legal proceedings with the ACCC is a bad PR look, even if you eventually win the case.
If an original new product has a 5 year warranty, one would expect a brand new replacement would last at least 5 years. If the seller does not expect the replacement to last 5 years, they should offer a refund.
It's the consumer who elects for a repair, replacement, or refund, not the seller. And it doesn't matter what you expect, it's what's reasonable. If you spend $N on a product, and the consumer guarantee says it's reasonable for that product to last X years, why should you be entitled to X x infinite years of working product under certain circumstances?
@HighAndDry:
i edited above to give more information. The consumer law is there to protect both seller and buyer.You have no entitlement for infinite years, the seller can choose to refund.
If there was 1 day left of a 5 year voluntary warranty left, and you knew a new replacement was only going to last 2 days. Would you take the replacement? No. It is perfectly reasonably to expect a new replacement one to last 5 years. Any reasonable person would take the refund if they knew the product would last only 2 more days.
or put it another way, how long would you reasonably expect the new replaced item to last in this case? are you saying it is reasonable to expect a new replaced product to only last 1 more day?
I would also add that, the law is about being reasonable and i doubt anyone would get infinite years. Say if the seller has replaced twice already, and buyer asks for another replacement after say 12 years for something expected to last 5. The courts would probably side with seller not replacing saying he has acted reasonably under consumer law. The law is purposely vague I think, and aims to push buyer and seller to a reasonable agreement since going to court is usually not in anyones interest.
edit: and in regards to saying fitbit did it voluntary, that's just the PR spin that worked on you. They basically conceded they were going to or very likely to lose. Multiple international companies have been caught out with our consumer protection laws. The big ones i can remember that tried taking on the ACCC and losing are valve and apple.
@fourofjacks: It doesn't matter that you can reasonably expect a new replacement to last X years. It only matters that could expect the original product that you purchased, to last X years. You don't get a new consumer guarantee with the replacement, you only get the benefit of the consumer guarantee at the time of the purchase - it continues to apply no matter how many replacements you get, but you don't get a new consumer guarantee everytime, so how much longer you can expect the replacement to last is irrelevant.
In effect, you only ask this question once, at the time of purchase: "How long is it reasonable to expect this product to last?" That's how long, from the time of purchase, that you're covered under consumer guarantees. Again - EVERY PIECE OF TEXT on consumer guarantees say that arises when you buy a product.
@HighAndDry:
You are correct, you do not get a new consumer guarantee with the replacement. There is no need to, the one consumer guarantee covers replacements.So, if under your interpretation you answer once. You had a phone you reasonably expected to last 2 years. It broke 1 day after the 1 year voluntary warranty ran out. It took 1 year to drag the seller through the courts and get a replacement. Are you saying you have no consumer rights if they give you a brick as a replacement, since you only expected the original to last 2 years and it is now 2 years and 1 day.
Obviously this is somewhat extreme example, but as the consumer law states, there is no end date for a consumer protection to apply. It is what is reasonable. And I doubt any court is going to side with you that a new replacement only lasts 1 or 2 days if it has a 5 year warranty.
compare:
Will courts side with the buyer if he expected another 5 years after the first broke down at 4.5years and a new replacement provided no fuss, probably not.
But if the first broke within month, the seller gave the buyer hell trying to get a replacement finally after 6 months, the courts would probably side with the buyer expecting another 5 years for the replacement.
What it all comes down to is that the consumer has no access to the factory to be assured of the quality of the unit they actually receive. This puts the obligation on the manufacturer to supply a product fit for purpose.
IN PRACTICE….
7 years on is a long long time
Id say no rights at all.But call the dept of Fair Trading for advice and suggestions.
Dont expect them to be any help or take any action.The Dept of Fair Trading will quite happily suggest what your rights may be then just tell you to try and sort it out with the supplier anyway.
At most they might write to the supplier on your behalf advising them of your complaint and thats about it.And dont forget that the supplier has rights too so they may rightfully offer alternative solutions in good faith or just nothing at all.
So it becomes a process of voluntary negotiationThis is how it works in reality.
Any other advice you have been given here doesnt work in practice regardless of various definitions and quotes from the legislation….
eg what is quoted above by HighAndDry - its just pie in the sky stuff.
Definitions are very vague hence cannot be enforced in reality.
I mean what is the definition and interpretation of a Consumer Guarantee and what is defined as acceptable quality?
This is something for lawyers and barristers to debate in the courts.
Do you really wish to entertain that?
Sorry but its scope and limitations are not specifically defined. Forget about it.
Unless you are prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to fight it out in court with the prospect of losing!!!!Been there done that - so dont get your hopes up.
Like I said - just try and negotiate the best outcome.
And this could work out to be a brand new system from another supplier
Following this thread with interest. The PCB in my washing machine failed recently, machine is about 8 years old. Husband rang up Samsung to get it repaired, completely ready to pay but they came out and replaced it free of charge (had to show my receipt) because they said that it was a known fault, and regardless of warranty period, for the price paid for the machine, it should be expected to last longer than that. It was definitely less than $2k too.
I do think that if this is a common fault with these inverters, you probably could fight this and it probably wouldn't make it to court if you found enough people with the same problem.
7 years is not long long time for a house or a car. It depends on what products you are talking about.
Aurora inverter I'm assuming. I have one (5kw model). Error E31 by any chance? It's a design fault on the main PCB of the inverter.
I fixed the inverter myself for about $50 in parts. Read down to the bottom of this thread: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2344024
My inverter failed after 5 years and ~8 months. ABB (distributor) will extend the warranty up to about 5.5 years, but won't go any further. I have enough technical know how to fix the problem myself and I did.
good work cluster. Wish i had your skill to fix this or found someone who would do it.
Parents one shat it self just as the warranty ended too…
ABB also make their own inverters i would hope for good quality seeing as they make most parts for substations .
Whilst a huge problem for the OP this is just one reason why power generation should be done centrally and managed as a state/national level.
For a country such as Australia to NOT do it this way seems crazy to me. Always has done.
What we're left is some happy tradies, some dodgy installations and a whole series of issues down the line e.g. inverter failure, roof damage, leaks and so on.
The inverter was purchased privately, in a private home, and all the profits from it go to the home owner. I don't see how it could be centrally managed/owned.
The inverter fault is not the fault of the installer. They're hanging a box on the wall. Auroras prior to ~2015 have a well known design fault and pretty much all of them fail the same way.
Regardless of the interpretation of the wording on whether a replacement restarts the warranty clock or not, what I got out of this thread was to get a refund, and then buy a new one from those proceeds. It removes all doubt about when the warranty expires (raised earlier by djsweet).
Definitely. Thing is - prices change, models go out of production, etc. But yeah - that's why for major defects, the law gives you the right to ask for a refund, because if it's a systemic issue, getting one defective unit replaced with another defective unit isn't ideal.
The 5 year warranty for the second inverter started on the day it was installed, and you are still within its 5 year warranty period.
Push them to replace it under warranty.
The warranty period does not get reset when a product is replaced. Otherwise people would have essentially unlimited warranties and then get a refund if they were unlucky enough to have an item fail every few years.
As ACL prevails over any warranty, might not Warranty be effectively ignored?
As another has commented one 'lemon' can't be replaced by another 'lemon'.
This Aurora[?] inverter seems to have a [now] known fault - manufacturer subsequently changing design.Similar to the lady with the Samsung WM?
Perhaps opening the floodgates to numerous claims on a popular (but subsequently found faulty, with design then being changed) inverter back in time.
Does the Italian manufacturer have the deep pockets of Samsung/Apple etc; or like VW might they need to be litigated against, either by bureaucracy (as in EU/USA) or class action?
Perhaps declaring bankruptcy.In an imperfect world some people will try to rort the system.
Pollies might come to mind, but you likely know others too.Perhaps after a second 'lemon' compensation for 'present-day' replacement of the faulty 'system'?
Even with the falling cost of PV systems, changing regulations & evolving system component compatability requirements, might make it cost effective for the manufacturer to 'fix' their faulty product!Perhaps a black list for serial 'rorters'.
Might have a black book for all past/present 'representatives' for a future royal commission to hold them accountable to "evidence based" decisions.
Financial (family & 'friends') & criminal consequences.That is correct, and the warranty period does not get reset. Instead the new product has it's very own statutory warranty.
The 5 year warranty for the second inverter started on the day it was installed
Sure, show me proof of purchase then that reflects this date?
Odds are you're not going to take it to court as it's too much effort.
You need to prove it's faulty and go from there.
https://forums.overclockers.com.au/threads/hp-dv6-overheatin…
What brand is it?
'Italian' aka made in china
The question that really needs to be asked here is would a reasonable person expect the system to fail within X years of purchase, noting it cost $10k. Whatever that number is, if your system fails within that period, then you're entitled to a repair/replacement under statutory warranty. Unfortunately this is all very subjective!
Personally, I would expect that to last longer, and I'd suspect in their cost savings projections they didn't include replacement costs.
Doesn't mean my perspective is correct though, I know nothing about these systems!
Italian + Electronics = No. Particularly when it comes to cars/motorcycles.
Write to the solar company an official letter that unless replaced you will contact Fair Trading. There are many templates online. They will likely replace it in no time.
If it's a brand that they deal with regularly, it's likely they have received many of these threats and won't be bothered by it. Especially if your point of contact is not the business owner.
Your best bet may be to contact the manufacturer, first by phone, and if you don't get a satisfactory resolution, try on their social media.
The warranty is on the original product on the original purchase date.
A manufacturer gives you a warranty as you have purchased a product for e.g. $2000 assuming that at $2000 it will be covered for 5 years. The price you paid is for a product PLUS a once off 5 year warranty, not a recurring warranty.
Perhaps buy something made in china next time. They're pro at solar. The Italians less so lol.
The price you paid is for a product PLUS a once off 5 year warranty, not a recurring warranty.
Yes, except the statutory warranty law applies to the replacement just as much as it did to the original.
Let’s say your first failure never happened and that this is the first failure after 7 years. Clearly you are past the 5 year warranty and thus no replacement should be provided. Do you think you deserve a replacement after 7 years if this was the first failure? That’s effectively what happened here. An endless supply of replacements is ridiculous.
Let’s say your first failure never happened and that this is the first failure after 7 years.
Except it did.
Clearly you are past the 5 year warranty and thus no replacement should be provided.
That's debatable. "Luckily" the second unit failed after just 3 years.
Do you think you deserve a replacement after 7 years if this was the first failure?
Quite possibly.
That’s effectively what happened here.
No it's not - see above.
An endless supply of replacements is ridiculous.
You're right there - the manufacturer/seller should be supplying goods that are fit for purpose.
Aside from the argument of whether it should be covered under warranty again.
Is the inverter exposed to sunlight or extensive heat for a significant amount of time during the day? Electronics hate heat… We had ours installed and the technician installed the inverter inside our garage, away from heat and direct sunlight. I've also seen many cover or provide cover to their external inverter to help with heat or sunlight.
If worst comes to worst and you have to fork out for a new inverter, perhaps look at the option of mounting inside if possible (if it's not already).
sounds like you just got a shit deal. I would check your setup to make sure no water is getting in there.
I am not sure why would equate European Italian with reliability in terms of electronics. I am not even sure I would equate anything Italian with reliability.
Tripods yes, Alfas no.
The questions you should ask yourself are:
(1) how long would the equipment of that size, function and price be reasonably expected to last? I know this is vague and arguable but if you have a case that the equipment is reasonably expected to last for more than 7 years, then you still have a consumer guarantee regardless of the manufacturer warranty. You might want to have a look at the whole industry practice to see how long is reasonable. I.e. long time ago when Apple only offered 1-year warranty, there were many suggestions to invoke the consumer guarantee for the period of 2-year based on the argument that Optus, Telstra… offered the iPhone on a 2-year contract (and also offer warranty for the duration of the contract) so of course, the iPhone should be reasonably expected to last for 2-year.
[As a bonus point, I personally think that the analogy could be applied to cars given that some car manufacturers now offer 5-year warranty. This might be an indication that a modern car should be reasonably expected to last for at least 5 years]
(2) You should also try to argue that the problem is likely to be a major problem. The next question to ask is whether the same problem keeps recurring to be considered as a major failure that a reasonable person knowing about this problem would not have bought it in the first place. I think it is more likely than not that it is a major problem as the whole thing stopped working and they replaced the whole thing
Then finally, you should argue that had you known that the replacement only lasts for 3 years and given that the initial failure is likely to be a major failure, you would have gone for an option to reject the good and receive a full refund rather than a replacement as they did for you.
What's the cost of repairing the part? Not replacing, but get a electronic tech to open it up and swap the dead parts over?
The inverter could be overheating and thus failing before due time?
I am not going to get involved with consumer rights but how many times do you want do deal with this issue? Why not buy a Sunny Boy inverter and fix the issue once and for all? Even if you get a new inverter from a warranty claim most likely it will be the same kind and have the same issues and in another few years you will be back at square one.
Hey OP E031 error?
OP just wondering but how can you tell if you're inverter fails ?
red error lights on the front, error on the screen etc.
The screen will be showing an error message. Daily production will be zero. In the case of the Auroras and the E31 error, the inverter keeps trying to restart. There is often arcing inside the unit. It's important to switch it off ASAP.
Hypothetically speaking, would the OP feel less inclined to seek another unit replaced under warranty if the original unit failed 2 years in from purchased date, then 5 years and 2 days after the replacement unit was installed?
I'm an average person with fairy equal judgement, and I'd feel less hard done by if that was the scenario.
4 years, then 3 years just feels like diminishing reliability and increasing frustration. Luck of the draw with electronics. Lucky it didn't burn the house down. Purchase extended warranty?
This is really simple - getting something replaced under (statutory) warranty effectively resets the clock. There are two good reasons for this:
You are entitled to a refund under the consumer laws if it's a major problem anyway, so you could just rebuy the item and get a full new warranty.
It doesn't make sense for something to last for (say) 2 years 11 months of a 3 month warranty, get replaced, and then the new warranty only lasts for 1 month - that's not solving the consumer's problem, and means that the seller can effectively give them a known lemon, which is not the intent of the law.
Those that are arguing that this essentially it means that a warranty is forever are technically correct, if you're lucky enough that your replaced products keep dying within your statutory warranty, then you will technically keep getting replacements.
Have you said the brand and model so people can avoid them?
Sounds like you got a definitive answer from ACCC/WA Consumer Protection. /thread?
- 1
- 2
@JimmyF: If something is replaced it still has a statutory warranty. The seller can't get around that.