High Quality Appliance Only Lasted 4 Years
If a premium appliance fails before a reasonable expected lifespan, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 lets you claim a repair, replacement or partial refund from the retailer for up to six years, well beyond the manufacturer’s guarantee. The higher the price paid, the longer it is expected to last, so an £800+ hob failing within five years has strong grounds for a claim.
When a Premium Appliance Fails Early: Your Rights and What to Do
Spending significantly more on a premium appliance comes with a reasonable expectation that it will last considerably longer than a budget one. When it does not, the question of what you are entitled to do about it is more complex than most retailers will lead you to believe. This article uses three real cases involving premium hobs and cookers to illustrate what the Consumer Rights Act 2015 actually provides, and how to use it effectively.
Case study 1: A £820 Neff induction hob that failed at 4 years
A reader contacted Whitegoods Help after purchasing a Neff induction hob for £820. Four years after purchase, two of the rings developed faults. A Neff engineer quoted over £600 to repair it, making the appliance beyond economical repair at approximately 80% of its original purchase price.
The question put to Whitegoods Help was simple: does the owner have any rights? The answer was equally clear. Paying £820 for a hob that is beyond economical repair after just four years, because two rings have failed, is not a reasonable outcome for the consumer.
The price point alone establishes an expectation of significantly longer useful life. A repair quote of roughly 80% of purchase price, for a machine less than halfway through any reasonable expected lifespan for a premium product, adds a further layer of unreasonableness.
The advice given was to contact the retailer under the Consumer Rights Act, and if necessary to threaten small claims court action. The manufacturer was also contacted directly.
David, the customer in question
The outcome is instructive. The initial response from Neff deflected responsibility to the retailer. A second, more persistent contact produced two substantive offers, one of which represented a saving of over £435 on the current model price.
The manufacturer conceded the point when pressed, which suggests they accepted that the failure was not acceptable for a product of that price and age.
Case study 2: A £2,370 Rangemaster cooker that failed at 32 months
A second reader contacted Whitegoods Help with a more extreme version of the same problem. An induction Rangemaster purchased for £2,370 developed a major hob fault after just 32 months. Repair quotes came in at £1,150.
Rangemaster offered no assistance, not even a reduction on parts costs. The retailer, AO, offered a depreciated refund of £1,327.
The case raised the same fundamental question in sharper form. £2,370 for an appliance that needs £1,150 of repair after less than three years is not a reasonable commercial outcome by any ordinary measure.
The depreciated refund offered by AO required agreement on what the appliance’s expected lifespan should have been, since the depreciation calculation depends on what proportion of that lifespan had been used.
Whitegoods Help’s position was that a £2,370 appliance should reasonably be expected to last at least 15 to 20 years, and certainly significantly longer than 32 months without a major fault. On that basis, 32 months represented only a small fraction of expected useful life, and the depreciation applied should have been correspondingly small.
An appliance described and priced as premium cannot reasonably be expected to sustain major failures after less than three years of domestic use.
Case study 3: A £849 Rangemaster cooker that failed repeatedly under warranty
A third case involved a freestanding Rangemaster cooker purchased from Currys for £849 with a two-year warranty. The induction hob failed one month before the warranty expired.
The repair, carried out through the Rangemaster warranty by Pacifica, failed again within three weeks. Currys replaced the cooker under warranty. The replacement then developed the same fault within two months.
This case is different in character from the first two. The machine was within its warranty period and the retailer acted appropriately in providing a replacement.
However, the repeated failure of the same component, a PCB fault apparently related to the induction hob overheating, raises a different question: what are the owner’s rights when a replaced appliance develops the same fault again?
If a repaired or replaced appliance develops the same fault again, this significantly strengthens the argument that the product is not fit for purpose. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, where repair or replacement has failed to resolve the issue, the consumer may be entitled to a price reduction or a final right to reject the goods. A pattern of the same PCB failure across both an original machine and its replacement is a strong indicator of a design or manufacturing issue rather than an isolated incident.
What do these three cases have in common?
Across all three cases, several patterns emerge that are relevant to anyone facing an early failure on a premium appliance.
Price creates expectation
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires goods to last a reasonable time, and what is reasonable is directly related to the price paid. A £200 appliance and a £2,370 appliance are not held to the same standard. The higher the price, the stronger the argument that an early failure is not acceptable.
Repair cost as a proportion of purchase price matters
A repair quote of 80% of the original purchase price, within four years, is not a reasonable outcome for a premium product. The repair cost is also a consumer rights question, because an appliance that cannot be repaired at a proportionate cost may not have been of satisfactory quality in the first place.
The first response is rarely the final answer
In the Neff case, the first manufacturer response deflected to the retailer. The second produced two substantive offers. Retailers and manufacturers often rely on consumers accepting the initial response. Persistence, and the clear communication of an intention to pursue the matter formally, frequently produces a different outcome.
Your claim is against the retailer
Under UK consumer law, the contract is between the buyer and the retailer, not the manufacturer. Consumer rights claims should be directed at the retailer where the appliance was purchased. Manufacturers can be contacted separately and may intervene commercially, as Neff did, but legal responsibility sits with the retailer. Read more on who is responsible for faulty appliances.
What does the Consumer Rights Act 2015 actually provide?
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced and consolidated earlier consumer protection legislation. It applies to all goods purchased from UK retailers and provides protection that extends well beyond the manufacturer’s guarantee period.
| Period from purchase | Your rights | Burden of proof |
|---|---|---|
| Within 30 days | Right to reject the goods and receive a full refund | With the retailer: fault assumed to be inherent |
| 30 days to 6 months | Right to repair or replacement. If these fail, right to a price reduction or final rejection | With the retailer: fault assumed to be inherent unless they prove otherwise |
| 6 months to 6 years | Right to repair, replacement, or price reduction, but depreciation may be applied | With you: you must show the fault was present at the time of sale or inherent in the product |
The six-year period is not a guarantee that all faults are covered. It is the outer limit within which a claim can be made if you can demonstrate that the fault represents a failure to meet the standard of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, or reasonable durability. The higher the price paid, the more weight that argument carries.
What about depreciation on a partial refund?
When a retailer offers a partial refund rather than a full one, they are entitled to deduct a proportion representing the use you have had from the appliance. The key dispute in these situations is typically what the appliance’s expected lifespan should have been.
A retailer who calculates depreciation based on a seven-year lifespan for a £2,370 premium cooker is applying a standard appropriate for a budget machine. Challenging the assumed lifespan is a legitimate and often productive approach. Our guide on what happens when an appliance is out of guarantee but still covered explains this in more detail.
How do you pursue a claim effectively?
-
Write to the retailer formally. A written complaint, by email or recorded post, creates a paper trail and signals seriousness. State the purchase price, the date of purchase, the nature of the fault, the repair quote, and your position that the appliance has not lasted a reasonable time given its price. Keep the tone factual and firm.
-
State what you want. Be specific. Either a free repair, a replacement, or a proportionate refund based on a realistic expected lifespan for a product of that price. Do not leave it open-ended.
-
Contact the manufacturer separately. While your legal rights are against the retailer, manufacturers have a commercial interest in protecting their brand reputation. The Neff case demonstrates that direct manufacturer contact can produce offers the retailer had not made. This is particularly relevant for premium brands whose entire value proposition depends on quality and longevity.
-
Reference the Consumer Rights Act explicitly. Retailers and manufacturers often respond differently once they understand you know your rights and are prepared to use them. Referencing the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the specific provision relevant to your case, satisfactory quality and reasonable durability, makes the legal basis of your claim clear.
-
Escalate to small claims court if necessary. Claims up to £10,000 can be made through the small claims track of the county court using the government’s Money Claims service. The process is designed to be accessible without legal representation. The cost of filing a claim is modest and is recovered if you win. Many retailers settle once a claim is formally issued.
-
Consider Section 75 if you paid by credit card. If any part of the purchase price was paid on a credit card, your card provider may share liability for a faulty product under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Read our guide on credit card protection on faulty appliances for more detail.
-
Seek independent advice if needed. The Citizens Advice consumer helpline and the government’s consumer rights guidance at gov.uk/consumer-protection-rights provide free, authoritative guidance on pursuing consumer rights claims. The Which? consumer rights service offers detailed templates and guidance, although full access requires a paid subscription (Which? consumer rights).
Why does premium pricing change the legal expectation?
There is a broader issue illustrated by all three cases that goes beyond individual consumer rights. A manufacturer that prices products as premium, markets them on quality and longevity, and then proves unable or unwilling to repair those products at a proportionate cost after a few years has a fundamental tension at the core of its business model.
If a product is so expensive to repair that it is effectively uneconomical to fix after four years, the manufacturer is either building products that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost, or pricing repairs in a way that is inconsistent with the product’s positioning. Neither is acceptable for a brand whose premium pricing is justified on grounds of quality and durability.
Consumers who invest in premium appliances are not simply buying better performance. They are buying the expectation of longer life, lower long-term cost, and the ability to have the product serviced at a reasonable price when something eventually does go wrong. When that expectation is not met, the case for consumer rights protection is at its strongest.
Consumer Rights Act and faulty appliancesThe full guide to your rights when an appliance develops a fault, including the 30-day rejection right and how to make a claim against a retailer.
Out of guarantee but still covered?Why the manufacturer’s guarantee is not the limit of your legal rights, and how to claim beyond the guarantee period.
Appliance failed just out of guaranteeSpecific guidance for faults that develop shortly after the manufacturer’s guarantee has expired.
Claiming compensation from a retailerHow to put a claim together, what evidence to gather, and how to escalate if the retailer refuses to engage.
This article explains how the Consumer Rights Act 2015 typically applies to faulty premium appliances, based on real cases reviewed by Whitegoods Help. Every dispute turns on its own facts. If your claim involves a significant sum, persistent retailer refusal, or potential safety issues, seek independent legal advice or contact Citizens Advice before taking formal action. If a fault has caused damage to your home, fire, electric shock, or any safety risk, stop using the appliance and have it inspected by a qualified engineer before pursuing a refund or repair argument.
Need help with a faulty appliance or a consumer rights dispute?
If your appliance has failed and you are not sure whether you have a claim, or if you need a repair to assess the extent of the fault, our recommended national repair partner provides same-day and next-day repairs with transparent pricing.
Frequently asked questions
If my expensive appliance fails after a few years, do I have any rights?
Yes. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality and last a reasonable time. What is reasonable depends significantly on the price paid. An £820 premium hob that fails after four years, requiring repair at 80% of its purchase price, has a strong argument for not meeting the standard of reasonable durability. Your claim is against the retailer where you bought it, not the manufacturer.
The manufacturer’s guarantee has expired. Is it too late to claim?
No. The manufacturer’s guarantee is separate from your legal rights under the Consumer Rights Act. Your legal rights last for up to six years from the date of purchase in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and five years from when you became aware of the fault in Scotland. After six months, the burden of proof shifts to you to demonstrate that the fault was inherent rather than caused by misuse, but for an expensive appliance failing with a common component fault after a few years, this is usually a reasonable argument to make. Read our full guide: out of guarantee but still covered.
The retailer has offered a depreciated refund. Is that fair?
Possibly, but the fairness depends entirely on what expected lifespan they used in their calculation. A retailer who calculates depreciation based on a seven-year lifespan for a £2,000 premium appliance is applying an inappropriately short lifespan. You are entitled to dispute the assumed lifespan. A premium appliance marketed and priced on grounds of quality and durability should reasonably be expected to last considerably longer than a budget equivalent.
Should I contact the retailer or the manufacturer first?
Your legal rights are against the retailer, so begin there. However, it is worth contacting the manufacturer separately, particularly for premium brands. Manufacturers have a commercial interest in protecting their brand reputation and may offer assistance, as the Neff case demonstrates, even when they have no direct legal obligation to do so. The two approaches can run in parallel.
What if the retailer simply ignores my complaint?
If the retailer does not respond or refuses to engage substantively, the next step is a formal letter before action, stating that you intend to make a small claims court claim if the matter is not resolved within 14 days. Many retailers settle at this point. If they do not, a small claims claim can be made online through the government’s Money Claims service for a modest fee, which is recoverable if you win. Free guidance is available from Citizens Advice and at gov.uk/consumer-protection-rights.
My appliance was repaired under warranty but the same fault came back. What now?
A repair that fails, or a replacement that develops the same fault, significantly strengthens your consumer rights position. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, where a repair or replacement has failed to resolve the issue, you may be entitled to a final right to reject the goods or a price reduction. A pattern of the same fault recurring suggests the product may not be fit for purpose, which is a distinct and strong basis for a claim.
5 Comments
Grouped into 4 comment threads.
0 replies Bought a freestanding Rangemaster cooker (RANGEMASTER - Professional+ PROPL60EiSS/C 60 cm) from Currys with a 2 year warranty; at a cost of £849 in 2022. The induction hob failed a month before the 2 year warranty expired (lucky!). Failure was the PCB. After a LONG wait got the hob repaired by Pacifica through the Rangemaster warranty (two new induction coils and new PCB's). The Repair failed in the same way after 3 weeks. Currys then replaced the cooker under warranty and the the replacement again came with new a 2 year Rangemaster warranty. Less than 2 months later same failure again. What now? I have no faith in the product - it seems to have an issue with the PCB on the induction hobs overheating and blowing. Clearly not fit for purpose. We have been meticulous about following all the guidance on use; types of pans etc. Any suggestions before I start another Warranty claim? cheers Peter
1 reply Glad to hear that your issue has been resolved. Unfortunately I am not in such a good position. Purchased an Induction Rangemaster for £2370 32 months ago. Now has a major problem with the hob and getting quotes of £1150 to repair. Rangemaster won't entertain any help, not even a reduction in the price of the parts which amount to just over £1000. AO who I bought it through are only willing to offer a depreciated refund of £1327. Cannot believe the arrogance of Rangemaster who won't offer any support.
Glad to hear that your issue has been resolved. Unfortunately I am not in such a good position. Purchased an Induction Rangemaster for £2370 32 months ago. Now has a major problem with the hob and getting quotes of £1150 to repair. Rangemaster won’t entertain any help, not even a reduction in the price of the parts which amount to just over £1000. AO who I bought it through are only willing to offer a depreciated refund of £1327. Cannot believe the arrogance of Rangemaster who won’t offer any support.
Likely replying to Michelle Drakes
Hello Michelle. It always saddens me to see such ridiculous prices to repair high quality products. Maybe it is no longer such good value for money to buy high quality appliance? The main point of spending extra money is that the appliance should last considerably longer than the cheap ones and therefore prove better value for money in the long run.
Your case is the same as David’s in the last comment, except much worse. £2,370 for 32 months use of an appliance just isn’t good enough. If they are quoting 50% of the purchase cost to repair it after just 32 months I would say you have rights under the sale of goods act because of they extremely high cost of the appliance. I think it’s fair to expect that an appliance costing that much should not break down within 32 months and need a ridiculously expensive repair.
It may be that you are entitled to a free repair. You could consider asking AO to pay for the repair instead of giving you money for a refund . However, you might have lost all confidence in the appliance now. The retailer is entitled to offer a depreciated refund. However, any money knocked off should be fair. The normal method would be to try and decide how long an appliance should normally last on average. So for example the average age of modern washing machine is reportedly only around 7 years. Therefore if one had lasted 3 1/2 years it has lasted on average about 50% of its expected lifespan.
I would expect a Rangemaster costing £2,370 should surely last about 20 years? Not necessarily without ever breaking down but not so soon and needing such high cost repair. If that is the case, and I can’t guarantee it is, then the figure they have quoted you appears to be based on an assumption that it is lasted about half its expected lifespan. I would strongly dispute that because it should last more like 20 years.
If you check out this article ( Out of guarantee even by a long time doesn’t always mean you should pay) you can see that Which? Advised one of their members who had purchased an-expensive coffee machine but it had only lasted 30 months that they should be entitled to expect it to have lasted more than 30 months and were entitled to a free repair. So I would think it reasonable to assume that with the amazing amount of money your appliance cost they would advise exactly the same.
If you are by any chance Which? member, get in touch with them. If not you should try somewhere like Consumer rights UK.gov.
0 replies Thanks for your update David. It shows that most manufacturers and retailers are not to be trusted when it comes to our consumer rights but when pressed they will usually start conceding ground. It's pretty disingenuous. As far as they are all concerned we have the guarantee (usually 12 months) and after that we pay. It's that simple to them. However, the government says that's not good enough. Retailers should be selling decent products, and if not they should have to deal with the consequences. If a product is so poor that some of them are scrap after just a year or so they should stop selling them or make sure they are so cheap most people will accept it. If your hob had been £199 you might well have accepted 4 years, but not at £820. Supposed high quality appliances at premium prices should always perform much better than normal and should not suffer serious and outrageously expensive breakdowns so young. All of the quality appliance manufacturers seem to have a very serious problem in that they don't seem able (or willing?) to repair their products at reasonable prices. It's hard to understand how one can seriously quote £600 after 4 years to replace 2 rings on an £820 hob. To me it comes across as either showing total contempt for customers, or living in an alternative reality. At least they have accepted how unacceptable it is and have offered to try and make amends. If they have a good name to defend it should be more than worth it to them. The question is, were they taking the proverbial before, or are they substantially subsidising the repair to keep their good name? If these prices are real they have a serious problem with their business model because they are making appliances that essentially can't be repaired. It may only be a small percentage of people getting affected (I've no idea but let's give them the benefit of the doubt) but it's pretty outrageous to be unable to repair their own quality products because of crazy prices, and expect customers to just write them off after 4 years. And if it genuinely is so rare for such a thing to happen there's even less of an excuse for expecting customers to take such a hit after investing in their good name.
Thanks for your update David. It shows that most manufacturers and retailers are not to be trusted when it comes to our consumer rights but when pressed they will usually start conceding ground. It’s pretty disingenuous. As far as they are all concerned we have the guarantee (usually 12 months) and after that we pay. It’s that simple to them. However, the government says that’s not good enough.
Retailers should be selling decent products, and if not they should have to deal with the consequences. If a product is so poor that some of them are scrap after just a year or so they should stop selling them or make sure they are so cheap most people will accept it. If your hob had been £199 you might well have accepted 4 years, but not at £820.
Supposed high quality appliances at premium prices should always perform much better than normal and should not suffer serious and outrageously expensive breakdowns so young. All of the quality appliance manufacturers seem to have a very serious problem in that they don’t seem able (or willing?) to repair their products at reasonable prices. It’s hard to understand how one can seriously quote £600 after 4 years to replace 2 rings on an £820 hob. To me it comes across as either showing total contempt for customers, or living in an alternative reality.
At least they have accepted how unacceptable it is and have offered to try and make amends. If they have a good name to defend it should be more than worth it to them. The question is, were they taking the proverbial before, or are they substantially subsidising the repair to keep their good name?
If these prices are real they have a serious problem with their business model because they are making appliances that essentially can’t be repaired. It may only be a small percentage of people getting affected (I’ve no idea but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt) but it’s pretty outrageous to be unable to repair their own quality products because of crazy prices, and expect customers to just write them off after 4 years.
And if it genuinely is so rare for such a thing to happen there’s even less of an excuse for expecting customers to take such a hit after investing in their good name.
0 replies I am the person referred to above. I emailed Neff and firstly received an email saying my complaint was with the retail outlet rather than themselves. I then emailed again and received a much more helpful reply with two options. Firstly they could cap the cost of repair of the faulty hob at £250, then guarantee those repairs for a year or secondly offer me the current equivalent new hob for the concessionary sum of £387.00 inclusive of VAT. We felt that to have the faulty hob repaired would be risky as the other two rings could go wrong which would leave us back at square one, so we have chose the replacement upgraded model at £387 which includes installation as well. By doing this we have a brand new model, guaranteed for a further 2 years for just £387, when the cost price of that model is still £822.50, saving around £435.00. We have never had a problem with Neff appliances so far, so hopefully this has been a one off. We weren't out to get 'something for nothing' but felt that a quality appliance should last longer than 4 years, and obviously Neff agreed. Once I got through to the right person they were very helpful and understanding. Many thanks to the whitegoodshelp website for the advice.
I am the person referred to above. I emailed Neff and firstly received an email saying my complaint was with the retail outlet rather than themselves. I then emailed again and received a much more helpful reply with two options.
Firstly they could cap the cost of repair of the faulty hob at £250, then guarantee those repairs for a year or secondly offer me the current equivalent new hob for the concessionary sum of £387.00 inclusive of VAT. We felt that to have the faulty hob repaired would be risky as the other two rings could go wrong which would leave us back at square one, so we have chose the replacement upgraded model at £387 which includes installation as well.
By doing this we have a brand new model, guaranteed for a further 2 years for just £387, when the cost price of that model is still £822.50, saving around £435.00. We have never had a problem with Neff appliances so far, so hopefully this has been a one off. We weren’t out to get ‘something for nothing’ but felt that a quality appliance should last longer than 4 years, and obviously Neff agreed. Once I got through to the right person they were very helpful and understanding. Many thanks to the whitegoodshelp website for the advice.
Bought a freestanding Rangemaster cooker (RANGEMASTER – Professional+ PROPL60EiSS/C 60 cm) from Currys with a 2 year warranty; at a cost of £849 in 2022. The induction hob failed a month before the 2 year warranty expired (lucky!). Failure was the PCB. After a LONG wait got the hob repaired by Pacifica through the Rangemaster warranty (two new induction coils and new PCB’s). The Repair failed in the same way after 3 weeks. Currys then replaced the cooker under warranty and the the replacement again came with new a 2 year Rangemaster warranty. Less than 2 months later same failure again. What now? I have no faith in the product – it seems to have an issue with the PCB on the induction hobs overheating and blowing. Clearly not fit for purpose. We have been meticulous about following all the guidance on use; types of pans etc. Any suggestions before I start another Warranty claim?
cheers Peter