Will the new UK "Right to Repair" force Leica to restart selling spares to third party repairers?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From today, there is a new law in the UK, which forces manufacturers and their agent/importers, to provide a spares service for items for a reasonable period. This is taken to be 10 years for white goods but for a very expensive camera such as a Leica, with a very long life expectancy (my oldest working Leica is over 90 years old), the courts may well deem a longer period constitutes "reasonable". I know the British repairers such as Malcolm Taylor and Alan Starkie are in despair over their failure to source spare parts from Leica. Alan feels the absence of spares will certainly make his business very difficult. 

In my own case I sent my locked up M7 to Alan for what I thought was a simple damaged on/off switch locking slot, jamming the shutter release (a common M7 problem). The problem turned out to be far more significant. Due to poor past service (probably at Solms, given that was the only place the M7 was known to have been serviced according to the previous owner), the blind rollers were misaligned causing excess drag on the whole mechanism. This was also causing inaccurate exposures. I was using a Motor-M due to my difficulty using a lever wind. The main motor drive input shaft, which also acts as the axle for the main wind on and shutter recocking intermediate gear, had sheared. Leica refused to send a replacement shaft to Alan and also would not accept the disassembled camera for repair. After 6 months of searching in vain for a shaft, all over the world, I wrote a begging letter to the CEO of Leica. They finally agreed, strictly on an ex-gratia basis and as a once only exception, to send a replacement shaft to me (actually 2 shafts as there are two variations for the 2003 year when my M7 was made). 

There is already such a law in the USA but when I spoke to Don Goldberg, he intimated that Leica New Jersey were minimally complying with the law and that they had already been sued once by a lawyer Leica owner to force them to sell spare parts. So it may similarly be necessary for one of the repairers to take Leica UK to court to force them to comply. 

Wilson

[andybarton]

Does the law apply retrospectively?

If not, I think that you're on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

Andy, 

From reports I have read, it appears to be retrospective regarding availability and sales of spare parts. 

Wilson

Edited July 1, 2021 by wlaidlaw

[Charles Morgan]

Nothing I have read says it applies to cameras. 

Colour me sceptical, but having observed my father being made a cash cow by a repairman, keeping a clearly faulty oven with a warped front door in new door seals over a 10 year period at £60 per visit, sometimes new is far better. 

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Charles Morgan

[andybarton]

That's going to give a lot of manufacturers a lot of headaches.

Their systems will have been set up to change models and parts every couple of years so as to deliberately make products extremely difficult to mend. If it can't be mended, you're going to need a new one. £££ - thanks very much.

Leica will have to reopen tooling machines from way back if it is deemed reasonable that a camera's lifetime is in excess of 90 years.

[pedaes]

 

The right to repair rules are designed to tackle "built-in obsolescence" where manufacturers deliberately build appliances to break down after a certain period to encourage consumers to buy new ones.The right to repair rules are designed to tackle "built-in obsolescence" where manufacturers deliberately build appliances to break down after a certain period to encourage consumers to buy new ones.

I don't think the best legal minds in the land could argue a 90 year old camera has built in obsolescence. 10 years is max we can reasonably hope for, but I also don't think this Law was ever designed to cover expensive non-essential toys.

Edited July 1, 2021 by pedaes

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

54 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

From today, there is a new law in the UK, which forces manufacturers and their agent/importers, to provide a spares service for items for a reasonable period. This is taken to be 10 years for white goods but for a very expensive camera such as a Leica, with a very long life expectancy (my oldest working Leica is over 90 years old), the courts may well deem a longer period constitutes "reasonable". I know the British repairers such as Malcolm Taylor and Alan Starkie are in despair over their failure to source spare parts from Leica. Alan feels the absence of spares will certainly make his business very difficult. 

In my own case I sent my locked up M7 to Alan for what I thought was a simple damaged on/off switch locking slot, jamming the shutter release (a common M7 problem). The problem turned out to be far more significant. Due to poor past service (probably at Solms, given that was the only place the M7 was known to have been serviced according to the previous owner), the blind rollers were misaligned causing excess drag on the whole mechanism. This was also causing inaccurate exposures. I was using a Motor-M due to my difficulty using a lever wind. The main motor drive input shaft, which also acts as the axle for the main wind on and shutter recocking intermediate gear, had sheared. Leica refused to send a replacement shaft to Alan and also would not accept the disassembled camera for repair. After 6 months of searching in vain for a shaft, all over the world, I wrote a begging letter to the CEO of Leica. They finally agreed, strictly on an ex-gratia basis and as a once only exception, to send a replacement shaft to me (actually 2 shafts as there are two variations for the 2003 year when my M7 was made). 

There is already such a law in the USA but when I spoke to Don Goldberg, he intimated that Leica New Jersey were minimally complying with the law and that they had already been sued once by a lawyer Leica owner to force them to sell spare parts. So it may similarly be necessary for one of the repairers to take Leica UK to court to force them to comply. 

Wilson

Wilson, there are more angles to this than you could imagine, starting with the word 'reasonable'. Sale of Goods legislation would not normally have effect after 20 years as any implied warranties would have effectively run out. And if you are waiting on a test case, I am trying to imagine their Lordships struggle with the concepts behind camera parts, design and repairs. The objective behind such laws is to eliminate quick obsolescence forcing further purchases. We do live in a disposable world; who would get a kettle repaired these days? With more expensive goods there could be a better case, particularly where technology changes might be happening quickly.

The solution as regards older cameras lies here https://camerarescue.org/futurecr/ . Before you jump up and say 'Yes, but they are in Finland!' let me point out that in recent weeks they have opened a branch in Paris and they have also completed their first course for camera technicians which is international. I know of one auctioneer/Leica dealer in the US who is planning to attend their course. Why not somebody or a group of people from the UK? This is the perfect solution to the ageing cohort of camera repairers around the world. I am bringing their work to the attention of my many contacts in the Leica/Auctioneer/Vintage Dealer world. I was contacted about a week ago by somebody from the US who works with Camera Rescue as I gave him good advice about a Post Leica some years ago. I was going to send you this link last night by email, but your post this morning has given me the perfect opportunity to post it here and share with others.

William

[masjah]

13 minutes ago, pedaes said:

 

......... I don't think the best legal minds in the land could argue a 90 year old camera has built in obsolescence. 10 years is max we can reasonably hope for, but I also don't think this Law was ever designed to cover expensive non-essential toys.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it has long been established in consumer law that what is a reasonable lifespan for a product is not an absolute, but rather, amongst other factors,  a function of the cost of the commodity, and a Leica camera is very expensive as cameras go. Clearly what is a reasonable lifespan in this case is still to be tested in the courts.

The question of Leica's refusing to supply spares (where these are available) is in a sense a separate one. Even if the requirement to supply spares to third parties is a side effect of the primary purpose of this legislation, that doesn't matter, if the requirement is still there in law.

Expensive, non-essential toys (if that is how you wish to classify Leica cameras) are consumer goods as much as are dishwashers and washing machines, and purchasers are entitled to the same protection. For this reason, I think this law was intended (quite rightly) to cover expensive non- essential toys too.

[Einst_Stein]

I have a music clock made several hundred years ago. It still works fine except the music.Wish the law covers this

[willeica]

4 hours ago, masjah said:

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it has long been established in consumer law that what is a reasonable lifespan for a product is not an absolute, but rather, amongst other factors,  a function of the cost of the commodity, and a Leica camera is very expensive as cameras go. Clearly what is a reasonable lifespan in this case is still to be tested in the courts.

The question of Leica's refusing to supply spares (where these are available) is in a sense a separate one. Even if the requirement to supply spares to third parties is a side effect of the primary purpose of this legislation, that doesn't matter, if the requirement is still there in law.

Expensive, non-essential toys (if that is how you wish to classify Leica cameras) are consumer goods as much as are dishwashers and washing machines, and purchasers are entitled to the same protection. For this reason, I think this law was intended (quite rightly) to cover expensive non- essential toys too.

Leica cameras and a myriad of other products are, of course, covered by the legislation. It is how the law is applied and how it is interpreted ( eg the term 'reasonable') in any particular case that will determine the outcome. For example a Leica M7 sold new 20 years ago might not be in the same position as an M7 sold new 5 years ago. Many manufactured items sold in the UK are manufactured outside of the country. The first port of call for the applicant/litigant would be the selling or distribution agency in the UK. However, if that agency is unable to settle the claim as parts for repair are no longer available from an entity outside of the country, whether that entity is inside or outside of EU does not matter, then the UK agency might have to satisfy the matter some other way eg refund or replacement. Going down the avenue of trying to enforce a UK court judgement in another country might be problematic. There is, however, a long standing principle in most consumer laws that original purchase rights erode over time and eventually expire e.g. Ein Stein's music clock and, indeed, much more recent items.

Wilson, I am not trying to discourage you, but I am pointing out the obvious difficulties. With Leica being in Germany you would be in a better position if Britain were still a member of the EU with various Consumer Protection Directives, but there may be some provisions in the EU-UK Divorce Treaty covering such issues. I should point out that I was Head of Consumer Protection in my country for about 8 years and I worked on several EU Committees on matters like Distance Selling and Product Liability etc.

William 

[wlaidlaw]

It is not so much for me, it is the Leica repair community, who are of great service to us all, I am thinking of. If they cannot source spare parts, in effect they cannot remain in business solely repairing Leicas. The part I wanted for my M7 is apparently still being being used on new M-A and M-P film Leicas, so it was not a question of availability, it was just a restrictive practice and trying to force all servicing to come to Leica themselves. This is the sort of practice that my understanding is what the new law is trying to prevent. I would not expect Leica to keep parts for my Model 1 but I would for the M7, which only went out of production 2 years ago and to make these freely available. Same would apply to lenses like my 28mm ASPH Summicron, which was only updated recently. Leica will not sell my local camera repairer the 3 small grub screws on the 28 Summicron, to replace the damaged ones holding the front group from unscrewing. He is trying to source 1.7mm grub screws elsewhere. 

Wilson

 

[andybarton]

It doesn't look like it's retrospective. It's for [some] goods bought from today according to the BBC

The new rules apply to products bought from Thursday, but manufacturers have a grace period of up to two years to make spare parts available.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57665593

[TomB_tx]

3 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

It is not so much for me, it is the Leica repair community, who are of great service to us all, I am thinking of. If they cannot source spare parts, in effect they cannot remain in business solely repairing Leicas. The part I wanted for my M7 is apparently still being being used on new M-A and M-P film Leicas, so it was not a question of availability, it was just a restrictive practice and trying to force all servicing to come to Leica themselves. This is the sort of practice that my understanding is what the new law is trying to prevent. I would not expect Leica to keep parts for my Model 1 but I would for the M7, which only went out of production 2 years ago and to make these freely available. Same would apply to lenses like my 28mm ASPH Summicron, which was only updated recently. Leica will not sell my local camera repairer the 3 small grub screws on the 28 Summicron, to replace the damaged ones holding the front group from unscrewing. He is trying to source 1.7mm grub screws elsewhere. 

Wilson

 

This is similar to the automotive service restrictions that brought the USA law requiring manufacturers to allow independent service shops access to parts and even tech information - but of course can charge for that access. For example, programming a car’s computer to work with a new key. This may require connecting the car to the manufacturer’s computer network through a proprietary computer. They can charge enough for these things that it is only feasible for a large shop, but they must allow it.

[jdlaing]

I suspect this new law is for white goods only and Leica cameras and lenses are not white goods.

Edited July 1, 2021 by jdlaing

[willeica]

6 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

It is not so much for me, it is the Leica repair community, who are of great service to us all, I am thinking of. If they cannot source spare parts, in effect they cannot remain in business solely repairing Leicas. The part I wanted for my M7 is apparently still being being used on new M-A and M-P film Leicas, so it was not a question of availability, it was just a restrictive practice and trying to force all servicing to come to Leica themselves. This is the sort of practice that my understanding is what the new law is trying to prevent. I would not expect Leica to keep parts for my Model 1 but I would for the M7, which only went out of production 2 years ago and to make these freely available. Same would apply to lenses like my 28mm ASPH Summicron, which was only updated recently. Leica will not sell my local camera repairer the 3 small grub screws on the 28 Summicron, to replace the damaged ones holding the front group from unscrewing. He is trying to source 1.7mm grub screws elsewhere. 

Wilson

 

Refusing to supply parts in the manner you describe could be a breach of competition law. There are various defences (eg that only they know how to do it properly) but most of those would not stand up to serious examination. The real solution to this is to organise independent repairs in a larger entity. That is what Camera Rescue are doing and, as I indicated before, they have a training program which could supply people to the UK market. I will ask them about what issues they have obtaining spare parts to repair film Leicas. By observation, they don't seem to have many as they seem to be able to successfully repair such Leica models. 

There is an old saying 'don't get mad, get even'. It is much better to find non legal routes to resolve such issues. If things go to law the main people who will benefit will be the lawyers.

William 

[pedaes]

7 hours ago, willeica said:

Leica cameras and a myriad of other products are, of course, covered by the legislation.

Not sure that is true of the UK legislation we are discussing here. The items covered are listed in the legislation, and seems to be 'white'(kitchen) appliances.

[wlaidlaw]

The argument that only Leica know how to repair, can very quickly be shot down in flames. They would have to admit that they have sent some of their most valuable museum exhibits to Malcolm Taylor for repair, e.g. Oskar Barnack's cine camera and the 24V electric motor drive aviation 250GG. Leica UK sent the cameras they were going to present to Queen Elizabeth to Peter Grisaffi at CRR to be checked over prior to the presentation. 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

2 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Not sure that is true of the UK legislation we are discussing here. The items covered are listed in the legislation, and seems to be 'white'(kitchen) appliances.

That is what the press is discussing but as I read the synopsis of the law, it is not limited to white goods. 

Wilson

[pedaes]

5 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

not limited to white goods.

Correct, this is full list (no mention of cameras)

Refrigerators

Washing machines

Dishwashers

Electronic displays (including televisions)

Light sources and separate control gears

External power suppliers

Electric motors

Refrigerators with a direct sales function (e.g. fridges in supermarkets, vending machines for cold drinks)

Power transformers

Welding equipment

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

Not sure that is true of the UK legislation we are discussing here. The items covered are listed in the legislation, and seems to be 'white'(kitchen) appliances.

I have not seen your legislation, Keith, but these laws are usually of general application. Perhaps only the white goods electrical is ready to go with this. Introducing such legislation with ensuring that the industry is ready to go would make sense.

William