Never Buy a Renault, and Other Cautionary Tales

On Friday night, I went to fetch something (I forget what) from my wife's car. Locking it after me, I remember thinking that the lock felt a bit "funny". Not enough to worry about. The next morning, my wife found out what was wrong, when she couldn't unlock the car again. By turning the key, I'd broken the driver's door lock. This was just the start of the problems.

The car in question is a Renault Megane, about two and a half years old. Through an inspired piece of design, the driver's door lock is the only way to lock the car. While we could get into the car (which we needed to, since it was blocking my car) by using the passenger's door, this turned off the central locking. Which can only be turned on again using the driver's door lock. Having opened the car, we have no way of locking it again. I took the car into Edinburgh, to the Renault garage, who yesterday informed that it'll take up to a fortnight to repair.

Now, car's break. I know that. I've never heard of anyone else with a car of any age where the lock has broken, other than through vandalism. However, if this was the only problem, I wouldn't be writing this now. What is upsetting is the long list of other problems we've had with the car. Instead, the petrol filter, ignition coils, and brake disks have all been replaced, and the rear brakes have seized on. The ABS has repeatedly caused problems. Losing use of the car for a fortnight due to a minor problem that should never have occurred is an irritation too far.

Given the catalogue of problems we've had, and the severe inconvenience of losing the use of the car for a fortnight, I asked Renault for assistance. The quality of the car is a long way short of the minimum standard I expect, and we've paid money primarily to allow my wife to travel to work. Furthermore, the reason it will take a fortnight to repair is that Renault does not manufacture the locks within the UK - every lock needs to be built to order and imported from abroad. Therefore, I asked Renault to supply a courtesy car while ours was being repaired - not an uncommon request for people with a relatively new, broken car. Renault refused. Absolutely. No excuses, no alternative offers. Not even an apology.

Needless to say, I will never be buying another Renault. It is difficult to convey briefly just how poor Renault's attitude has been. However, this is a personal problem, and one that I doubt will seriously sway your buying habits. If nothing else, I suspect that if you are interested, you can find someone to tell you a horror story about any car manufacturer you care to choose. The reason I bring this up is that it is indicative of a more general problem in our society. Let's call it the great consumer rip off.

The problem is that many companies do not see the need to correct mistakes they make, and it appears to be getting worse. Like Renault, many manufacturers and retailers see no need to indemnify the consumer against faulty products, bar the often minimal guarantees or warranties offered. That these warranties are often less than the legal protection consumers are already entitled to seems an irrelevance. And since the consumer has no right to expect quality products, the manufacturer does not provide quality. Most household electrical goods are likely to start going wrong soon after the one year warranty is up, and anything surviving to five years old is a rarity. Complain and you'll get the (lack of) warranty thrown in your face.

Consumer protection law makes no mention of warranties. Under law, we are entitled to the repair, replacement, or refund of any item which has faults that can be reasonably assigned to a fault at the time of manufacture. We are entitled to this protection for a "reasonable" length of time, of not more than six years. We are also entitled to "reasonable" out of pocket expenses we incur in gaining these entitlements. It is a rare warranty that offers anything like this level of entitlement. Those that come close normally cost nearly as much as the original product.

So why buy extended warranties? Partly ignorance - few people know their rights, and the shops certainly aren't keen on informing people - and partly to save arguments. Having a warranty makes it less likely that trying to invoke your consumer rights will lead to a blazing row. Again, this is partly due to ignorance. Shops aren't keen on their staff knowing the consumer's rights. Partly a certain arrogance. One B&Q manager told me that she "didn't care what the law said" because she "worked for the company". (Interestingly, B&Q's entire policy on faulty merchandise is a one sentence statement that they will comply with all relevant statutory rights. The manager in question appears not to know her company's policy any better than the law.)

The problem is that company's don't, in any real sense, need to comply with the law. We might be unhappy with the quality of the car we bought from Renault, but we have little real recourse. Trading Standards do good work, but they are underfunded, and understaffed. For every battle they win, there are hundreds they can't even begin to fight. It is in the interests of retailers to argue every case, paying up only when forced to. Indeed there is anecdotal evidence that certain stores, especially electrical retailers, deliberately string out arguments for as long as possible. For every hour a Trading Standards officer spends fighting one argument, he can't be working on another case.

What is needed is proper consumer protection. Self-governed warranties are not working. They are too short, too expensive, and have too many exceptions. Instead, we need a law that provides for an independent body to produce lists of minimum standards for goods and services. We need the public to be informed of their rights, and we need a Trading Standards with the ability to enforce the standards. Those companies which do not swiftly correct defects brought to their attention, need to be made, by law, to pay for the costs Trading Standards incur in pursuing the case. When stringing out arguments over a faulty toaster costs the shop (rather than the tax payer) £100 an hour, the willingness to argue will swiftly vanish.

It is sad that we have reached the point where only relatively draconian legislation will protect the consumer. The dodgy market stall trader has moved into the board room, and large companies routinely ignore customer service. Indeed, customer service departments appear now to serve largely to protect the rest of the organisation from complaints, while having no power to solve problems themselves. The threat of bad publicity no longer works. Why worry about a mention on Watchdog? All your rivals will appear on the program too. It is sad, but strong legislation now appears the only solution.

Graham Robinson. 28th May 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.