Firstly, you're confusing correlation and causation. These regulations were introduced in the late 1970's in the UK, not in the last 10 years.
Secondly, the right for redress within 2 years is subject to a legal test for if it is reasonable. Anything that's designed to last less than 2 years should be obvious. For example, by supplying a use-by date on the packaging, or by being a consumable.
Thirdly, companies are left to compete on their offerings. What these regulations do is give consumers the right to legal redress from the seller on grounds of reliability being significantly poorer than expected, something that consumers cannot generally know at the point of purchase. This puts additional competitive pressure on the manufacturer, as poor quality products will damage the seller's profit margin.
Finally, there are no bureaucrats involved. If the seller doesn't meet its obligation the only recourse is legal action. There is no government office of extended warranties, or similar.
Secondly, the right for redress within 2 years is subject to a legal test for if it is reasonable. Anything that's designed to last less than 2 years should be obvious. For example, by supplying a use-by date on the packaging, or by being a consumable.
Thirdly, companies are left to compete on their offerings. What these regulations do is give consumers the right to legal redress from the seller on grounds of reliability being significantly poorer than expected, something that consumers cannot generally know at the point of purchase. This puts additional competitive pressure on the manufacturer, as poor quality products will damage the seller's profit margin.
Finally, there are no bureaucrats involved. If the seller doesn't meet its obligation the only recourse is legal action. There is no government office of extended warranties, or similar.