Karcher / Karcher Outlet - diabolical srrvice

spinybif_2

Bought a refurbished K3-540 with 6 months guarantee in July last year. On the 2nd use ( after 9 months) the vario-lance is faulty. Whilst I was prepared to take a chance on the pump base unit I do not expect a lance with only 1 moving part to fail after only 1 use.

Karcher Outlet and Karcher themselves when contacted have no interest in helping - merely quoting "6 month guarantee". If the value was any more I would happily take them to the Small Claims Court under the sale of goods act. For now AVOID these disgraceful companies at all cost.

Incidentally poor service / reliability is a common theme for Karcher across the internet

FiXXXeR

spinybif wrote: »

Bought a refurbished K3-540 with 6 months guarantee in July last year. On the 2nd use ( after 9 months) the vario-lance is faulty. Whilst I was prepared to take a chance on the pump base unit I do not expect a lance with only 1 moving part to fail after only 1 use.

Karcher Outlet and Karcher themselves when contacted have no interest in helping - merely quoting "6 month guarantee". If the value was any more I would happily take them to the Small Claims Court under the sale of goods act. For now AVOID these disgraceful companies at all cost.

Incidentally poor service / reliability is a common theme for Karcher across the internet

Old post, I know, but this is scarily similar to my story with the Karcher Outlet. I bought a K2 Compact from them, noticed some wear on the high pressure hose connector but stupidly thought it must have been tested and alright. I used it once and it was ok, then at 8 months gave it a second go and POP! Off came the high pressure hose...

They kept on at me about how I should have purchased an additional warranty, despite my clear argument about how consumer law was on my side due to it not lasting a reasonable amount of time or being fit for purpose. Now they are completely ignoring my emails.

Wonderful company. :mad: Wish I could pick and choose which laws applied when it suits me! Almost tempted to take them to the small claims court just to prove a point (and lump them with court costs), despite the low value of the item.

tomtontom

In both cases you would need to prove the item was inherently faulty, as it is more than six months since purchase.

FiXXXeR

tomtontom wrote: »

In both cases you would need to prove the item was inherently faulty, as it is more than six months since purchase.

Yes, and once I sent them information on how the law works that is what they came back with. But proof can be many things, including a simple statement that would be accepted by an independent arbitrator, if it came to that. I don't see why anybody would doubt my statement that I only used this thing twice (it's been a long, wet winter), nor that I noticed damage on the thread when I received it (my wife will back me up on that). And anyway, the "reasonable amount of time" clause should still be triggered at 8 months, irrespective of how much I have used the thing.