hoover washing machine insurance after report of fault

julie1111

Hello

i purchased my hoover washing machine in Jan this year from Currys, last night it flooded my kitchen, i reported this to Hoover and engineer visited, apptly the fault is due to accidental damage, as something (he claims money or bra wire) has put a hole in a pipe and as a result has also broken the plastic surronding the drum, he claims this is not covered in my 12 month guarrantee - they have forced me to take out additional cover (accidental damage cover) for 2 years from date of purchase at a cost of £70, i feel a bit ripped off to be honest, what are your thoughts/my rights

thanks julie

fluffnutter

What might have muddied the waters is that you went direct to Hoover. Your contract is with Currys and you should have approached them.

Technically any fault that develops in the first six months should be deemed inherent, i.e. not the result of wear and tear or accidental damage etc.

Your problem is that the 'engineer' is not exactly impartial and has decided to claim the damage is caused by you (albeit not deliberately). Hoover are on dodgy grounds here in terms of the SOGA. Having said that, it's Currys that should be sorting this out, not Hoover.

Ask Hoover for a refund of your accidental cover insurance (which incidentally you can cancel anyway within 45 days of purchase) and ask Currys for either a repair or replacement at their cost, not yours.

Fosterdog

How did they force you to take out extra cover?

If it really was accidental damage then they didn't have to do a thing for you, they could have just left you to pay full price for a repair or buy a new machine.

Of course if you don't believe that it is accidental damage then it may be worth getting an independent engineers report but you will have to pay up front for this and you can only claim it back if it turns out to be a manufacturing fault.

Did you choose to contact Hoovers before Currys or did Currys pass the repair on to them?

arcon5

Could there be any truth in their assessment?

Fosterdog

fluffnutter wrote: »

Technically any fault that develops in the first six months should be deemed inherent, i.e. not the result of wear and tear or accidental damage etc.

That's not quite right, it's not automatically assumed that it's an inherent defect it is just down to the retailer to prove that it's not. People can still accidentally damage things within the first six months.

Also that is if you are dealing with the retailer, here it looks as though OP chose to go direct to the manufacturer so SOGA doesn't apply to their investigations. I'm pretty sure Currys arrange repairs from their own engineers. Apologies if I've assumed wrongly and they did arrange it.

fluffnutter

Fosterdog wrote: »

How did they force you to take out extra cover?

If it really was accidental damage then they didn't have to do a thing for you, they could have just left you to pay full price for a repair or buy a new machine.

Of course if you don't believe that it is accidental damage then it may be worth getting an independent engineers report but you will have to pay up front for this and you can only claim it back if it turns out to be a manufacturing fault.

Did you choose to contact Hoovers before Currys or did Currys pass the repair on to them?

An independent report shouldn't be needed as the item is less than six months old. The SOGA assumes that any fault that develops in this period is inherent. It might well have been caused by accidental damage (hence a moral issue might be at play here) but in terms of legality, the OP is entitled to a repair or replacement.

Plus I'm not sure how objective a Hoover engineer is ever going to be so who knows whether it was caused by the OP or not?

All that is by-the-by anyway, as it's Currys that should be dealing with this, not Hoover.

fluffnutter

Fosterdog wrote: »

That's not quite right, it's not automatically assumed that it's an inherent defect it is just down to the retailer to prove that it's not. People can still accidentally damage things within the first six months.

Well, I thought this and had a bit of a google. I found this on the whatconsumer website hence my post but I do appreciate that it might be a grey area...

Thanks to the new European Regulations, UK law now offers greater protection for consumers against products which develop faults within the first 6 months. The assumption is now that if it breaks down within this time period it cannot have conformed to the contract specification when purchased and you have the right to an automatic repair or replacement.

arcon5

Fosterdog wrote: »

That's not quite right, it's not automatically assumed that it's an inherent defect it is just down to the retailer to prove that it's not. People can still accidentally damage things within the first six months.

In which case the burden of proof is on the retailer to prove otherwise.

fluffnutter

Looking a bit further it would appear that the retailer (not Hoover) can dispute that the fault was inherent (even if it develops within the first six months) and must then prove that it wasn't. This will involve an independent review (at their cost). I'd just be really wary about how 'independent' independent really is...

fluffnutter

arcon5 wrote: »

In which case the burden of proof is on the retailer to prove otherwise.

Who, in this situation, will probably take Hoover's review as proof. I think the OP might have some problems here...

arcon5

fluffnutter wrote: »

Who, in this situation, will probably take Hoover's review as proof. I think the OP might have some problems here...

If that's the case then op has the option of obtaining their own independent report and disprove their claims - in which case they should reimburse the cost.

Or there is of course the option of going to court and having a judge decide how much weight the report actually carries.