IKEA guarantee - worthless?

Meepster

smcaul wrote: »

but using the balance of probabilities it goes my way not yours - if more then one bearing had failed then it would be more your way - but with only one broken and the others intact.......

But once again, you are ASSUMING...

An assumption is not a legally accepted form of proof...

But if we ASSUME some more, we can assume that all the bearings were made to exactly the same specification and from the same materials. Therefore, as only one has shattered, then it isn't the product that is at fault, but the installation of that one specific door...

We really are going round in circles here.

I'm basing my answer on facts: we don't have enough proof to determine why the fault has occured.

You are basing your answer on assumptions...

smcaul

But so are you!!!! Why are my assumptions worth less then yours, even though my assumptions take into account the fact that the other bearings are still intact and functioning correctly!!!

You have automatically assumed that the OP has 1. installed the doors themselves (they could have had a professional fitter in to do it!) 2. that the op has decided to repeatedly open and close the doors at the speed of sound, therefore burning out the bearings. 3. that the op or their kids are from some sort of circus family who happily spend their time climbing up and down wardrobe doors!!!

When in fact all the OP asked was for some help, not for you and others to insinuate that they are liars and that what they are telling us about the fact the bearing has failed must be down to misuse or neglect!! Why not assume that the OP is an upstanding member of the community, who would feel nothing but revolt at the mere thought of telling a lie, let alone telling one that would have a financial implication for a company, and so could be misconstrued as trying to commit fraud!!

Quite frankly I prefer looking at it my way, nothing the OP has said so far leads me to the conclusion that they are anything but honest - I'll let you think the worst of people!!!

Meepster

If you actually READ my posts properly, you will see that at no point have I actually said that it is due to poor installation, or misuse, or faulty products. Where did I mention the OP had fitted them and not a professional? Where did I mention opening and closing the doors at the speed of sound? And where did I mention kids hanging off them??

What I have been doing is playing devils advocate and saying there is no way to PROVE any of the reasons. Each scenario is just as likely as the others. it's YOU who has been saying that they MUST be faulty, when you have no proof. All my assumptions are purely that, assumptions, which is why I have said, from my first post in this thread, that the OP needs proof...

I think it's you who needs to get off your high horse, stop accusing me of saying things which I haven't and read the 2nd and 3rd posts in this thread, by myself and adam.mt, and there you will find everything the OP needs to know with regards to resolving this issue. Any other course of action would simply be a waste of time and money...

smcaul

I suggest you go and read post no.15!!!! (one of your posts!).

All the OP needs to do is take it to the small claims court, does not take much time or money, goods are sold with 10 yr guarantee, but Ikea are saying that they are only expected to last 12 months, which means goods were mis sold - contract null and void - refund please Mr ikea, job done - no messing with engineers reports needed - easy!!!

Meepster

Meepster wrote: »

How can you rule out misuse or defective installation though?

Would anyone EVER admit to having misused a product, or having installed it incorrectly, if it became faulty?

Or would they automatically presume that the product MUST be at fault?

smcaul wrote: »

I suggest you go and read post no.15!!!! (one of your posts!).

Yup, I read it. Care to tell me WHERE exactly I said that it WAS misused by the OP, WAS installed incorrectly by the OP or WAS faulty??

I've highlighted the important word for you, and I think you'll find you owe me an apology...

smcaul wrote: »

All the OP needs to do is take it to the small claims court, does not take much time or money, goods are sold with 10 yr guarantee, but Ikea are saying that they are only expected to last 12 months, which means goods were mis sold - contract null and void - refund please Mr ikea, job done - no messing with engineers reports needed - easy!!!

And here we go round in circles YET AGAIN...

Ikea's defence: Yes, it comes with a 10 year guarantee, but the claimant has been unable to prove, despite our requests, that the product is inherently faulty and hasn't become faulty due to misuse or poor installation, as per the Sale Of Goods Act.

I think you should start off with the basics, don't you??:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

And that's the last thing I am going to say on the matter...

smcaul

YAWWWNNNNNN, you really are tiresome, the fact that all the other bearings are still working prove the point, not a difficult concept to grasp, but you seem unable to no matter how many times I say it.

Now, just to give you a bit more info on a very similar situation, I had a brake calliper fail on a car, it had a warranty on it (the car) and brakes were covered. When I made a claim to the warranty company they refused as "fair wear and tear" I took them to court and countered with the fact that as the other 3 were still working then that proves the failed one was defective - case won, payment made Only reprt needed was from garage to say item had failed - which the OP has from Ikea anyway.

Sooooo, I know my way works, would you care to provide proof of your point?

As for post 15, you put it quite clearly "Originally Posted by Meepster
How can you rule out misuse or defective installation though?"

Feel free to make your apology, i'm here all evening

VK-2008

i would ask for someone from ikea to come out and see the units and see the fault
anytime i have had a problem they have been more than accomodating
just mind and be polite and friendly but make sure your assertive and know what your takling about so they dont rip the P

unholyangel

smcaul wrote: »

YAWWWNNNNNN, you really are tiresome, the fact that all the other bearings are still working prove the point, not a difficult concept to grasp, but you seem unable to no matter how many times I say it.

Now, just to give you a bit more info on a very similar situation, I had a brake calliper fail on a car, it had a warranty on it (the car) and brakes were covered. When I made a claim to the warranty company they refused as "fair wear and tear" I took them to court and countered with the fact that as the other 3 were still working then that proves the failed one was defective - case won, payment made Only reprt needed was from garage to say item had failed - which the OP has from Ikea anyway.

Yes because clearly a calliper is prone to outside tampering (like kids climbing up it or someone falling and using it to steady their full weight etc) in the exact same way a wardrobe door is............seriously, get a grip.

smcaul wrote: »

but using the balance of probabilities it goes my way not yours - if more then one bearing had failed then it would be more your way - but with only one broken and the others intact.......

Actually using the balance of probabilities, my theory is just as likely as yours.

smcaul wrote: »

It's a sliding wardrobe door!!! How are you supposed to climb up it!!!! People, look at the facts, it really is quite simple, the op purchased doors, the rest seem fine, no other bearings have failed, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that in all likely hood it is a manufacturing defect - which should be covered by the 10 year guarantee!!! Why do you all seem so intent on making mountains out of mole hills!!!

I presume you were one of those kids who were never allowed outside to play and who were told to sit in a corner reading a book and dont have kids of your own? Kids are like monkeys. They will climb and hang off anything - until they are told off by their parents. But turn your back and they're at it again :rotfl:

We are not in any way insinuating that it IS through misuse, merely stating it is possible it is through misuse and therefore not covered. TBH its rather ignorant to assume your own position is correct - especially when advising the OP to take legal action which could potentially cost them money that they wont be reimbursed for as it may not be a inherent fault!

We're merely covering the bases so that the OP covers their backside.

gordikin

Just a thought OP. Have you considered repairing it yourself if you can? Ball bearings seem cheap on ebay, e.g. 185 assorted for £2.50 delivered. It maybe less hassle in the long run?

gordikin

smcaul wrote: »

YAWWWNNNNNN, you really are tiresome, the fact that all the other bearings are still working prove the point, not a difficult concept to grasp, but you seem unable to no matter how many times I say it.

Now, just to give you a bit more info on a very similar situation, I had a brake calliper fail on a car, it had a warranty on it (the car) and brakes were covered. When I made a claim to the warranty company they refused as "fair wear and tear" I took them to court and countered with the fact that as the other 3 were still working then that proves the failed one was defective - case won, payment made Only reprt needed was from garage to say item had failed - which the OP has from Ikea anyway.

Sooooo, I know my way works, would you care to provide proof of your point?

As for post 15, you put it quite clearly "Originally Posted by Meepster
How can you rule out misuse or defective installation though?"

Feel free to make your apology, i'm here all evening

Wind your neck in! What proof have YOU provided?...that's right NONE!