The Sale of Goods Act has been replaced by The Consumer Rights Act 2015. The new act is designed to, “simplify, strengthen and modernise the law, giving you clearer shopping rights”. So in theory our rights should be even better than with the old Sale of Goods Act. However, some retailers are telling customers that their rights are less if they bought an appliance after the 1st of October 2015.
This implies they believe the new act gives consumers less rights. Consumer group Which? have a form on their site that allows you to compose a faulty goods complaint message to send to a retailer. Part of the form asks if you bought your appliance before, or after October 2015.
This implies there is some difference too. However, it’s possible that the difference is only to determine which legislation to quote to the retailer. I’m currently doing more research, and will keep updating this article as I find more information.
How is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 different?
The main points in the new Consumer Rights Act are that goods must be – of Satisfactory quality – Fit for purpose & As described. We also still have up to six years to take a claim to the small claims court for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and five years in Scotland. So it sounds pretty much the same as the old Sale of Goods Act.
The main improvements are that we have additional rights early on after purchase, at below 30 days, and below 6 months (described below). However, there does seem to be at least one potentially negative difference. After 6 months have passed, the onus is now on us to prove that the appliance was faulty when it was delivered.
If your complaint is that after 3 years your appliance has broken down with a fault that has rendered it economically unrepairable, then proving that it was faulty when delivered sounds very difficult. If this was the case, then depending on how much it cost, how much it’s been used and under what conditions, you may still have a valid claim.
Under the old Sale of Goods Act we still had to prove that this was due to a fault when the product was purchased. So nothing should really have changed except potentially the retailer’s interpretations. Here is a quote from consumer group Which? on their old Sale of Goods Act page –
If your claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ends up in a small claims court, you may have to prove that the fault was present when you bought the item and not, for example, something that was the result of normal wear and tear. ”
This should still be applicable with the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. If for example you bought an appliance for £600, and after 18 months it is scrap because a fault developed unrelated to wear and tear – or misuse – and it was so expensive to repair that it is not worth repairing I would say you have a very valid claim under either the Sale of Goods Act or the Consumer Rights Act.
I would argue that a fault rendering the appliance unrepairable after only 18 months means that the part that failed was not of satisfactory quality and that should be covered by either of the consumer acts.
But what if the appliance had only cost £199? Well maybe 18 months for £199 isn’t so bad if it’s had heavy use? There are no actual rules. It’s what would be considered reasonable with all circumstances considered.
This is subjective. Likewise if an appliance was scrap after 3 years it might still reasonably be considered unacceptable on an appliance that cost £600 – but again, it’s subjective, and may need a small claims court judgement, or help from Which? or another consumer group to fight the case.
One thing is fairly sure, the retailer will almost always say there’s nothing they can do once it is out of the manufacturer’s guarantee. That is not true if you have a valid claim.
Is satisfactory quality still covered?
The consumer group Which? still list, “not of satisfactory quality” as one of the potential complaints in their template complaint letter even if you bought the appliance after October 2015.
Forbes specialise in renting Bosch appliances so they know them inside out. They also rent other brands and many other products – more details
So, combined with the fact that we have up to 6 years to claim in the small claims court (5 in Scotland) this shows we can still claim if an appliance has not lasted a reasonable time due to unsatisfactory quality. Consider becoming a Which? member for full support and information on consumer rights.
Faulty within 30 days?
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has now given us the right for a full refund if an appliance is faulty, unfit for purpose or not as described within the first 30 days. You must reject the product quickly though, as soon as anything is noticed.
Faulty under 6 months old?
The onus is now on the retailer to prove that a fault on a new appliance within the first 6 months is not an inherent fault. In other words unless they can prove otherwise it will be automatically assumed that your appliance had a fault when it was sold if it fails in the first 6 months.
You should be entitled to compensation or even a refund. Most retailers will still try to fob you off though. Many have a voluntary exchange policy of something like 28 days during which they will swap an appliance over out of “good will” if it fails inside the period. But after that they can be quite stubborn about it.
Any exchange policy is in addition to your rights and nothing to do with consumer rights at all. They might say they can’t exchange a faulty machine after this period, but if it is under 6 months old and has a fault you need to tell them they sold you a faulty product. That is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act.
This is of course assuming there is a genuine fault, and the issue isn’t related to poor installation, failure to use it properly, or misuse. If it’s only a minor fault though it may be more convenient to accept a repair. In fact they can insist on repairing it if they can show it’s disproportionately expensive to replace it. This little caveat can cause a lot of problems because they might argue that’s always the case. Generally though if it was a serious fault they’d probably find it better to swap it.
You should also be entitled to a refund or partial refund if a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience, or if a repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time. This may well be applicable if a repairman looks at the appliance and says he needs to order parts that might take weeks to arrive and be fitted. I would especially argue the significant inconvenience issue if you had a fridge or freezer break down within 6 months and they can not repair it for weeks.
Any reasonable person is likely to argue that being without one of these vital appliances for more than a few days is very inconvenient.
You might argue the same thing if a washing machine can’t be repaired within (say) a week and you have a young baby or large family to wash for. After 6 months though things are different.
There is no 6 year guarantee
We do not have the right to free repairs up to the 5 or 6 years in the sense that any faults up to 6 years should be repaired free of charge, but I do think faults that render an appliance uneconomical to repair within the 6 years should be potentially covered (depending on full circumstances).
It’s not necessarily unreasonable if a fault develops on a washing machine or other white good within the first 5 or 6 years. Appliances can and do break down and this is accepted in the Consumer Rights Act. However, whilst it might be considered reasonable for a fault to develop on a £200 washing machine after 2 years washing for a family of 4 every day it might not be considered reasonable for a washing machine costing £600 to suffer the same – especially if only washing for a retired couple for example.
Major faults occurring within the first 5 or 6 years (which these days commonly render an appliance beyond economical repair) are a different matter though, and I believe many cases may well be covered. If an appliance breaks down and is unrepairable because of the huge cost quoted to repair it within the 5 or 6 years (especially after only 2 or 3) then I believe there is a strong case that the product has definitely not lasted a reasonable time.
You have to take into account how much it cost though, and how much use it’s had. Maybe if a washing machine only cost £200 and did 5 years of heavy washing it could be considered a reasonable lifespan, but one costing £350 and only washing for one person, or a couple, should surely have lasted longer? It’s very much open to interpretation but don’t forget the Consumer Rights Act specifically qualifies the phrase that a product should last a reasonable time by saying “reasonable” is “that (which) a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory”.
A can of worms is waiting to be opened
Until enough people start to fight for these rights and retailers and manufacturers are forced to comply most consumers may have to resort to taking a seller to the small claims court to get a decision on the true extent of their rights ( Small claims court advice ).
If this ever occurs on a large scale it will cause serious ripples. The status quo affords a lot of extra profit to retailers and manufacturers. It effectively encourages them to produce or sell poor quality products. They financially benefit from doing so through extra sales when they don’t last, extra repair business, extra sales of spare parts, and sales of extended warranties.
I’m sure many people take out an extended warranty to protect them from the fear of a major fault developing within the first 5 years, which may well be covered under the Consumer Rights Act. Related: consumers lost over £1bn last year through not using consumer rights | Money Helpline Saves Members Over a million pounds
What would happen if consumers actually received their statutory rights?
Shops going out of business?I suspect retailers were made responsible for all problems with the products they sell – even when it’s clearly not their fault – for two reasons.
Firstly because the customer only has a contract with the people they bought from – and not the people who made it. They shouldn’t have to negotiate with faceless third parties. Secondly, and I’d like to think this was intended though it’s only speculation on my part, if retailers sell rubbish they (in theory) should suffer financial and time consuming consequences and would either stop selling the rubbish or put pressure on manufacturers to improve quality.
Unfortunately retailers do sell a lot of poor quality products that don’t last anywhere near as long as they should, and of course manufacturers continue to make them. Because most consumers don’t enforce their consumer rights both manufacturers and retailers generally profit nicely from sub standard quality and have little incentive to produce or sell better quality products.
Consumers take most of the impact of poor quality goods themselves by paying out extra for extended warranties or by replacing products far too often, or by paying out to repair products within the first 6 years when the retailer may well be liable.
Most manufacturers (of appliances at least) own so many brands they don’t even fear people being so dissatisfied with a brand that they don’t buy it again because they own many of the “alternative” brands. ( Who owns who? Who really makes your appliance? )
If consumers en mass started to reject the status quo it would put the cat amongst the pigeons and cause a lot of trouble for retailers and manufacturers. Retailers in particular wouldn’t know what had hit them. In the end they’d have to stop selling rubbish because they could no longer profit from doing so. They would only be able to survive selling products that were good enough to last the “reasonable time” expected.
I wouldn’t try to say that most appliances are so rubbish that the majority of them don’t last (although some might), but there’s little doubt that an unacceptable percentage of white goods appliances do suffer expensive breakdowns well within the first 5 or 6 years and this current situation, which is bad for the environment as well as consumers, is only viable because it’s the consumer that bears most of the financial costs. If the consumer refused to accept this burden it would pass back to the retailer as the Consumer Rights Act intended and guess what – the retailers would ensure products they sold were more reliable.
Would we be better off?
Would we better or worse off?This paragraph is a little tongue in cheek but believe it or not I would worry about how all this could impact the economy especially in these very tough times for retailers.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from the “credit crunch” it’s that our economy seems to be based almost entirely on everyone buying lots of products they do not need, and replacing them way too regularly. As soon as we enter a time when people stop buying things they don’t really need we have mass unemployment and business’s struggle. So if all products were much more reliable it could have a big impact on sales and jobs.
It would however be better environmentally and that’s pretty important at the moment. The cost of products would have to go up because you can’t have very cheap and very reliable. It’s ironic that in a way, all these shoddy goods help keep our economy going. However, the same could be said for crime and vandalism, think how many jobs would be lost if there was no crime – seriously it would be millions.
There’s no need for every product to be high quality and there’s plenty of room for a healthy variance in quality but products should still last a “reasonable” time and most people would think a white goods appliance lasting less than 5 or 6 years before a major fault renders it not worth repairing is not reasonable in most circumstances.
Fair wear and tear clause
A vital point to realise is that the Sale of Goods act and the Consumer Rights Act in the UK giving rights to compensation for between 5 and 6 years is not a guarantee or warranty. There has always been a fair wear and tear clause. It has always said that it does not mean that no breakdowns at all should occur within this period –
Goods cannot always be expected to work fault-free. They can break down through normal use. Buyers cannot, therefore, expect to hold the seller responsible for fair wear and tear. There needs to be a fault that was present on the day of sale even though it only became apparent later on, or a mis-description of the goods, or a lack of durability that suggests the goods were not of satisfactory quality to start with. ”
Research further
Last year I spent a few weeks researching consumer rights and wrote an entire section focusing on consumer rights for washing machine owners though most of the advice should be equally relevant for most appliances and even other products.
Many manufacturers give 2 year guarantees (such as Bosch) and even 5 year parts and labour guarantees such as Miele or 10 year guarantees (ISE10 and occasionally Miele). The longer the guarantee period the better. However, any guarantee given by a retailer or a manufacturer, as the famous phrase says, “is in addition to your statutory rights”.
The Consumer Rights Act is a separate right which often needs fighting for and is shrouded in mystery, confusion and denial as well as (to be fair) often over inflated expectations from consumers.
Here’s why being out of guarantee is often irrelevant
My article here gives examples of how even years out of guarantee we may still have rights – Out of guarantee doesn’t always mean you have to pay out
Related Consumer Links –
I’ve read all the consumer advice about washing machines, I’m thinking of taking them to court (This page contains a link which allows you to pursue a small claim online, without even having to leave home. The article is about washing machines but the link can be used to pursue any small claims court action)
The above link includes many links to consumer booklets and guides as well as looking at many related FAQs regarding white goods and repairs. One of the most useful guides available is written for retailers. This is a valuable guide for retailers, but as consumers it is very useful to see what retailers are being told are their responsibilities by the Department of Trade & Industry.
Five consumer laws you really ought to know. There are several references to washing machines and white goods in the article and the comments below it.
How The Consumer Rights Act leaves manufacturers with little or no consequences for making rubbish
Making only retailers responsible for poor quality products has major downsides. Everything I’ve read about consumer rights cases, and all of my personal experiences, have shown that the big retail companies usually deliberately stall us. They keep information from us and mislead us (proven by Which? research). They even keep their front line staff in the dark about our rights so that they genuinely believe we have no rights, and sound convincing when they fob us off. They realise most people will give up so they play the numbers game. They disingenuously refuse to help us when we have bought products that have been of very poor quality, have not lasted a reasonable time, or have had design faults and inherent faults.
They refuse to give refunds or replacements even when we quote our Consumer Rights or threaten to take them to the small claims court. They know this method weeds out most people. I’m not talking about when customers make unreasonable demands, which does happen, but when we have clear and obvious claims. If you have a genuine claim the chances are very remote that the retailer will admit it. Unless you make a serious fuss they have nothing to loose by stalling you until they get official small claims court papers through. Then they will likely pay up.
In my opinion the system does not work well at all. The retailers are not to blame for shoddy goods, yet they have to suffer losses of time and money sometimes years after selling a product and they presumably do not agree with it. Maybe this is why – Is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 too hard on retailers?.
Repairs
Fixed-price repairs, Pay monthly options, Repair & protect your whole appliance..
Save Money Now
Subscribe to Which? today and start saving money now. Subscription offers often available.
Spares
Spares4Appliances is a spares company run by repair engineers who understand all about spare parts for appliances.
Hi,
I bought a bunch of Neff appliances through Wren when I purchased my kitchen last year, and within a year in September I noticed my steam oven leaking water when using the sous-vide function. I called Wren and they said to book a repair with the manufacturer. I booked an appointment with Neff(Bosch) and they came out to repair it on 3rd October 22 (within the 2 years warranty period). The engineer could fix it an has come out about 4 times with parts and it still leaks. So now it has gone to Neff HQ in Germany for a resolution, but I am being played by Neff UK, saying they are waiting for a response from Neff in Germany. I have contacted them multiple times and all they are saying is they have to wait for a response from Germany.
This issue has gone on for 3 months. I just want my oven replaced for a new one. What are my rights to complain to an ombudsman?
Kind regards,
Eddie
Hi Eddie. Your rights are under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and are with the people you bought it from. I’ve seen countless cases where people’s kitchen appliances bought with the house are faulty but the building companies don’t want to deal with it. They don’t seem to see themselves as retailers, but if they sold it to you they are responsible under UK consumer law.
Uilders always just keep repearu g that you ha e to deal with the manufacturer but this is untrue when your consumer rights have been breached. You have a right for any repairs to be carried out within a reasonable time, and most people would see 3 months and multiple visits as way past reasonable.
You need to pursue the people you bought it from for a replacement, or refund, which they will be extremely reluctant to do. You may need help from a consumer rights group like Citizens Advice
If Neff cared enough they could give you a replacement but they don’t have to.
27/11/2020 I replaced my relatively cheap Hotpoint dishwasher with an Expensive Miele dishwasher because they boast reliability and 20 year life, it lasted 8 months (July 2021) when an electrical unit burnt out, “Technician’s comments: Find power board arcing/large blue flash when power on” Miele took 10 days to get the part to repair it, it lasted a further 8 months (May 2022) and the same part had to be replaced. The machine has lasted a further 8 months (January 2023) and appears to have the same fault, I am waiting for the engineer to come again, can I demand a new machine as I’m thinking it must have a more serious problem for the same new electrical part to fail after only 8 months use, Now I feel this may continue until it catches fire.
I would think so Robert. It seems like there may be a design fault somewhere. I would contact Citizens Advice for conformation.
I would also add that although there is nothing to stop you asking Miele for replacement machine, it is very rare for a manufacturer to replace an appliance. They have no obligation whatsoever under consumer law other than to honour the guarantee that they give. Your claim for a replacement or refund under the consumer rights act 2015 is only with the retailer. Sadly, the retailers do not like this, and are usually very unhelpful. But if you have a valid case, and it sounds like you may well have, then you have to be persistent. That’s why I suggested contacting citizens advice as they will give you the confidence to be persistent if they confirm that you do have a valid case.
Thanks for your help, I am going to give CA a try now.
Thanks again
Robert.
Thanks Robert please do let me know how you get on. It’s very important, especially if by any chance anything I said turns out to be incorrect.
Hi I bought a Hotpoint freestanding gas cooker, via Appliances Direct. It was delivered and fitted on the 20/12/22. unfortunately the gas went out on the 3 occasions in the main oven when cooking the Christmas meals. also when my wife removed the shelves to reposition them the side shelf supports fell away from there position and hit her finger and caused a minor burn. We informed Appliances Direct and rejected the cooker as it was under 30 days. There response was that we had to contact Hotpoint and ask for an uplift number. We have done this but when we mentioned that my wife had burnt her finger, they came in and disconnected the cooker and put do not use stickers on it, this was on the 05/01/23. I still have a cooker i can’t use and its taking for ages to get anything sorted. Hotpoint have come back and have agreed to refund cost of cooker only, am i not entitled to be refunded the cost of connection and delivery of original cooker as i would then be in the financial position i was in before faults.
Hello Mark. Hotpoint have no obligation to refund the cost of the cooker. If you think about it, you didn’t give them any money at all. All of your money went to the retailer. It’s therefore only the retailer that you have a contract with, and only the retailer is legally responsible under the consumer rights act 2015.
If a manufacturer is willing to take responsibility, and properly compensate or fully replace an appliance, that’s great. It saves a lot of hassle for you. But it’s very rare for them to do this because they know they have no legal obligation. Their only obligation to you, is to carry out repairs while it is under their initial 12-month guarantee. I suspect that maybe they can’t repair it, and that is the only reason they are offering anything at all. If they could repair it, or if they could repair it without it costing them as much or more than a refund, then I’m pretty sure they would be insisting that all they could do was repair it.
The retailer is clearly very happy for Hotpoint themselves to replace the cooker, as it saves them any cost and trouble. However, the retailer should replace the cooker and arrange to have it installed. They, in turn, should be able to claim back from Hotpoint. At the end of the day, the retailer bought the cooker from Hotpoint, you, bought the cooker from the retailer.
I would use the fact that Hotpoint have agreed to refund the cost of the cooker as irrefutable proof that the cooker has failed to be of sufficient standard and quality under the consumer rights act 2015. And therefore you have a right for the retailer to compensate you properly. You should not lose out financially in any way because this appliance breached the consumer rights act 2015. If they are still being unhelpful, you may need to contact citizens advice, or Which?
Hi, I bought a Hotpoint Dual fuel cooker in 2019, 14 months later the thermostat in the oven went and it burned all the food. They refused to fix it as it was over a year old and I had to pay a company they recommended in the service booklet to come and fix it. Now, not even three years later the same problem is happening. Any advice please?
Hello Hycie. This is a difficult one, because of the gap between the 2 incidents. It does feel as if the thermostat is not of sufficient quality if it has failed twice. The problem is that at this stage you would have to prove that the thermostat has an inherent fault, or is of such poor quality that it keeps failing. This is extremely difficult to do.
Something like this also depends on how it is used. So for example if it was on for several hours a day cooking in a café or restaurant, or for an extremely large family, then it might be argued that it is inevitable that things will fairly regularly break down. But if it’s only been used lightly, or in totally normal circumstances, most people would agree that it is very poor for a thermostat to fail twice in just over 4 years.
The problem you will face is that the manufacturer will simply not be interested in anything you have to complain about. They will just tell you it is out of guarantee, well out of guarantee, and therefore is fully chargeable. Any consumer rights that you may have, would be with the retailer. But the retailer will just tell you the same. They always do. They are not remotely interested in giving free repairs, compensation, or replacement appliances. Not unless they are forced to, or when faced with blatantly obvious and unavoidable evidence.
Once an appliance gets to over 4 years old, the retailer will do everything they can to avoid doing anything. So unless you can get a consumer rights organisation to help you (such as citizens advice), or an independent report that says that the thermostats have an inherent fault, or are of insufficient quality, you will just be fobbed off.
It’s depressing, but I’ve seen enough cases over the years to just know how they all work. If the thermostat had failed 3 times, for example, you would have a stronger case for claiming this part is clearly of insufficient quality or has an inherent fault in its design. Likewise, if the first thermostat that was fitted had failed within several months, that would also be a stronger case. But twice in 4 years is poor, but more difficult to say for certain that this is in breach of the consumer rights act 2015. If you want to pursue this, you need to pursue it with the retailer, but I would contact citizens advice first.
Hello
I purchased a dishwasher 10/01/20. If arrived faulty and they replaced it on 22/01/20. After about 21 months, the control panel stopped working, the retailer sent out an engineer and they replaced the control panel, within 6 weeks this control panel stopped working. I was told my machine is now 2 years old and out of warranty, and there is no warranty on replacement parts.
I carried on using the machine and on the 22/01/23 the dishwasher had an electric fire from the fault control panel.
The retailer has no interest in the machine and has fobbed me off every time.
I have a report from an appliance engineer stating the control panel has wrapped and this is down to poor build quality. The retailer said they couldn’t do anything unless I had this.
They have offered a partial refund to me of £119.
They won’t reimburse me the £75 report to prove the machine is faulty.
The machine cost me £239 after paying over 24 months it has cost me £292
I had ask for a replacement machine and a refund on the engineer’s report.
This machine could have burnt our home down.
Only being offer £119, is this fair? I am out of pocket already for £75 , I’m only really getting £44
Thanks
Jenny
Hi, I have a 5-6 year old Hotpoint washing machine, used by a family of 2 – twice every three weeks. It has worked well until recently when the door lock burnt-out and rendered the machine unusable. The door lock mechanism (including the wiring) is singed and clearly fire damaged. Luckily, the machine stopped the cycle itself and the fire did not progress into something more serious. This is a known fault with their washing machines and not long ago a number of models were recalled due to electrical faults within door locks posing a fire hazard. My model is not listed among those recalled.
I have since contacted Hotpoint and they are sending out an engineer and should repairs be carried out I must pay £75 towards them. Shouldn’t I be provided with a free replacement or repair in this case?
Wow. What unbelievable cheek by them. They’ve made an appliance that has a substandard and dangerous design, and they want to charge you to fix it. This is the problem with the consumer rights act 2015, it only gives responsibility to the poor saps that sold it to you, and its not their fault at all.
If the manufacturer refuses to fix it for free the only option is to claim against the retailer.
You are right in saying this is a known fault. Hotpoint had to issue a safety notice a few years back for this very issue because it was a potential fire hazzard.
The only possible way that the door lock and connecting wires can get so hot that they start to melt is because of a poor contact inside the door lock or the parts used are just not up to the job.
I genuinely despair at this because I used to see hundreds of burned out door lock wires on previous Hotpoint washing machines as far back as 30 years ago. How can they still allow this to happen?
Thank you for your advice. Following the engineer’s visit, they decided to recall and replace with a new machine. They have delivered and installed today – I wanted to wait to see this through before updating you as there have been horror stories in this regard too! Here’s hoping it’s better this time round.
Thanks again, Yasmine.
That’s great Jasmine. Thanks for updating with the news. It’s very helpful.
That’s great Jasmine. Thank you for updating with the news. It’s very helpful.
Hi
I bought a side by side Kenwood fridge and freezer from Currys 18 months ago. I didnt pay for any extra guarantee The fridge stopped working a couple of days ago (it became very hot inside) I rang Currys who couldnt come out for 10 days so I spoke to a local engineer who came to check it the same day. He said it was irreparable as there had been a slow gas leak which was why it had taken days for me to realise that it wasnt working properly. He gave me a report to say the same and recommended that I go back to Currys and ask them to replace it or a least compensate me. I rang Currys once more to update them on the problem and as it is a “consumers rights issue” they will call me back in about 5 days. They didnt even ask what the fault was.
Can I expect any help under the Consumer Goods Act? The fridge is now discontinued and as I need a new one that creates a problem in that I wont be able to match it up with my freezer.
Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me
Hi Ann. Yes its the retailer you have rights with. If the appliance is unrepairable, and you have an independent report saying this, then the retailer has breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because they sold you an appliance that has not lasted a reasonable time, and/or was not of sufficient quality.
If it’s lasted 18 months, they can knock off an appropriate amount because you have had 18 months use. I would tell them that it should have lasted at least 10 years.
Hi,
Hoping you can help.
We have a Zanussi oven which is 5 years, 4 months old. Today a gas engineer did a test on the oven and found that the oven was releasing over 500ppm carbon monoxide. The appliance has now been disconnected and the gas capped.
We got the appliance from AO.com, and I’m in touch with them, I’m waiting to hear back from their technical dept about the next steps.
The gas engineer advised that the product would still be within the customer rights act timescales, that the fault is definitely the cooker, and that it couldn’t be considered normal wear and tear. So that is what I’m working from.
Would you advise that the customer rights act is the right legislation to work within here, and if so, what would be reasonable for me to expect from the retailer, especially given the dangerous situation we have been put into through the sale of an appliance that has developed a dangerous fault within 6 years?
Many thanks,
Paul
Hello Paul. This is the second case of a gas oven appliance apparently causing carbon monoxide I’ve had reported this week. I am not a gas safe engineer, nor have I ever worked on gas appliances, so I can’t give expert advice on carbon monoxide.
The only time I’ve ever heard of carbon monoxide, it has always been related to an installation fault. A blocked flue, or a gas cooker grill being used with the door closed, or a gas cooker, grill or hob being used to heat a house and on for long periods. I’ve never heard of carbon monoxide being given off in dangerous quantities during normal use caused by a fault in the oven.
Did the engineer say exactly what fault was causing this? My understanding, which seems to be backed up by several searches on Google, is that carbon monoxide is a natural consequence of anything burning with a naked flame, but only created in dangerous quantities when insufficient oxygen is available or when a flue is blocked.
If your gas safe engineer is confident that your carbon monoxide is caused by a fault on the gas oven, and nothing to do with installation, then yes you are still within the 6 year period (in England) to be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 against the retailer.
Hi Andy,
Many thanks for taking the time to help me, this is much appreciated.
Yes, the gas safe engineer has said that the issue is ‘the internal failure of some part of the over housing causing incomplete combustion within the appliance’.
I’ve spoken to the retailer who is talking a lot about the appliance being out of warranty, however I have pointed out, as per your advice on this page, that the warranty is irrelevant here given the appliance is covered under the consumer rights act. They want me to get a report from the engineer that states the issue is either one of installation, an inherent fault, or that the appliance is beyond economical repair. If that is produced, they say they will discuss ‘depreciated refund’ based on how long I’ve had the appliance. My take is that I would reasonably expect the appliance not to be producing a dangerous level of CO within 6 years irrespective of age or frequency of use, and therefore I would expect a refund in full. Is this a reasonable position do you think based on the Customer Rights Act?
Many thanks again,
Paul
Hi Paul. No, they are entitled to do this. If an appliance has developed a fault which is beyond economical repair and the appliance has only lasted 5 years, the claim is that it should have lasted much longer.
If it is generally accepted that it should have lasted 10 years, it has only lasted half as long as it should have. If you’ve had 5 years use from it you will only be compensated for the 5 you’ve not had. So its normal that you would be entitled to 50% of the cost.
Hi Andy, thank you, that is helpful. :-)
Let us know how you get on. You should be able to claim for the cost of the report too. You should not lose out financially as a consequence of a breach of the Consumer Rights Act.
Hi Andy,
Apologies, me again. You said I should be able to claim for the cost of the report.
This is AO’s response to me when I said I would be anticipating them to pick up the cost of the report so that I am not left out of pocket – should the report show that there is an inherent fault in the appliance:
‘In terms of the charges for an inspection, due to the product being over 6 months old and outside of the manufacturers warranty period, the liability for any charges wouldn’t lie with us sadly so we would be unable to cover any costs incurred to prove this was sold inherently defective. Outside of 6 months, that responsibility does lie with the customer as outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and so any charges we would be unable to accept liability for or make a payment towards I am very sorry.’
Do you have any advice here please?
Many thanks
Paul
Regarding your comment on March 13, 2023 at 8:31 pm where the retailer have said that they are not liable to refund you your costs in getting an independent report. I don’t believe what they are telling you is true. However, I am not an expert in consumer rights. I’ve done a lot of research into it, and had a lot to do with it, but I think you need to check with an official consumer rights group such as Which? or Citizens Advice.
When the retailer admits that they are liable to compensate you because the appliance that they sold you breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but then say that in order to get your rights you have to pay potentially £70 or more, completely undermines the whole concept of us having any rights.
What is the point of having consumer rights if we have to pay to get them? It’s insane. In the eyes of the consumer law, the retailer has broken the consumer rights act 2015, and therefore you are due compensation. You should not have to pay out money to get that compensation, which could in theory be even more than the compensation you might receive.
In my opinion, I think they are conflating 2 separate issues, either out of ignorance, or deliberate stalling. They are correct in saying that they are not liable for commissioning an independent report. That is up to the consumer. It’s a gamble we have to decide whether to take or not. If the independent report does not side with what we say, then we have lost that money. This obviously puts many people off. But anybody with even a remote concept of common sense should realise that if such a report confirms that we have a case, then this cost should be paid by the party that has been found to be in breach.
If what I’m saying is not true, then it would be an absolute and total disgrace. I know for a fact that if you sue somebody and win, then all of your costs, including any expert reports, are met by the loser.
Please let me know how you get on.
I purchased a Hotpoint fridge/freezer , with a 10 year parts only guarantee 8 years ago. It stopped chilling on 12th January, an engineer came out on 19th, the part needed is still not available and there’s not ETA for it!
I paid extra for the appliance knowing that in the case of a breakdown, I would only have to pay for the labour and that I would have a working appliance for 10 years.
I was wondering what my rights are regarding how long I can be expected to wait for the part and what happens if they can’t get one.
Hello Sheila. I don’t think your issue is covered under the consumer rights act 2015. Apart from anything, the consumer rights act 2015 only covers us for 6 years (5 in Scotland). But also, the parts-only guarantees that are common with many white goods manufacturers, are always in addition to our consumer rights. They are essentially a “free” extra guarantee. Now I would argue that they are included in the price, and therefore not really free. But as we do not pay separately for them, it’s not really considered to be something we pay for. But even if it was, any rights under the consumer rights like would only cover us for five or six years.
As far as I can see, manufacturer’s probably make money on most of these guarantees, and they aren’t really worth the paper that they are written on. This is because they still charge for labour, which is can be as much as £130 these days. The majority of repairs on white goods appliances either don’t need any spare parts fitting, or only need parts that are relatively inexpensive – especially to the manufacturer.
The spare parts required to fix your appliance not being available is sadly very common these days. It is in fact now become the norm. I think manufacturers are likely to make sure spare parts are available for at least six years, because if they don’t, there will be problems related to the consumer rights act. But after that, we have absolutely no rights whatsoever.
Thank you for clarifying the situation. Hopefully they will be able to get the part. If not I won’t make the same mistake again ..i.e. pay more than I need to for something because it has a parts guarantee. I will save the money for any future repairs…. or…pay for a separate insurance.
Thank you
Hi iv had hoover washer 6months iv had to replace the paddles twice and now the drum needs replacing its so frustrating as iv got two young children and a mother i care for that needs her bedding changed nearly every day can I ask for a replacement as I cant be waiting weeks. Thanks for reading
Hello Sian. Unfortunately, after six months have passed the onus passes onto the consumer to prove that there is an inherent fault. However, in your case I would cite the fact that the paddles have had to be replaced twice, and now the drum needs replacing as proof that there was an inherent fault when it was sold to you and therefore it has breached the consumer rights act 2015.
Sadly, retailers notoriously make it very difficult for consumers to get their consumer rights unless they are faced with an extremely blatant case. Also make sure you are not washing trainers. I believe they can damage the drum paddles.