Small Claims Court - Currys Electrical?

NewlySingle

My mum went to the Blackpole branch of Currys in Worcester and asked for product information so she could choose a new freestanding cooker. She's retired (in her 60's), not internet savvy and on limited budget, so it's a big expense.
She fully read the information provided and chose a £499.99 Zanussi model which they delivered for £12.00.

She only had access to the manual (which described the risks of burning to pets and small children) after unpacking and installation. She burnt herself before she even cooked in the oven and realized the oven wasn't suitable for her. She has a narrow galley style kitchen and even aside from the risk of falling against it, the door (which gets hot enough to deliver a nasty burn) presents a high risk of injury.

Until installed there was no way for my mum to realize the oven could hurt her so badly. She phoned their customer services team which initially looked promising but now they refuse to do anything about changing it.

I helped mum write the following letter which covered the main facts again but so far their answer has pretty much been buyer beware.....:mad:

"On 29 September 2014 I placed an order for a Zanussi ZCV66330BA, which was delivered on 9th October 2014 and installed on Friday 17th October 2014.
On Saturday 18th October 2014 I followed the instructions on the manual prior to first use and heated the oven up.

Upon heating the area immediately in front of the oven was becoming very hot, on checking the glass I burnt my hand and had to run it under cold water to prevent a more serious burn.
After re-reading the manual I paid particular note to the section saying that under normal operation "when it operates or cools down accessible parts are hot" which may be a risk for pets and small children.
When I first spoke to Currys customer services on Monday 20th October the representative said I could go to the store and they would let the manager know to exchange the cooker and they would install the new cooker for free.
When I got to the store the manager (Nigel) knew nothing about it and refused a replacement, he said "it was my own fault I'd burnt my hand and I shouldn't have bought the cooker". He seemed unconcerned about my fears of
being injured and would only arrange for an engineer to come, even though I repeatedly explained the very real danger of injury as I am subject to falls.

Although I have spoken to customer services on numerous occasions and had an engineer visit in an attempt to rectify the situation, I am told that the oven is operating under normal parameters.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.
I am currently unable to use the oven as I am subject to falls and there is therefore a strong likelihood that if I was to fall in the kitchen near the oven (under normal operation) I could get seriously bunt.

This oven has never been cooked in and has only been heated up by myself and the engineer to ascertain it's exterior temperature (which is hot enough to burn me)
As I am unable to use the oven (due to it's safety risk) it therefore not fit for purpose and under the sale of goods act I ask that it be replaced with Hotpoint HUE61KS electric ceramic cooker, which I understand has a cool touch door and the difference in cost to be refunded to me.

I would request that you confirm that you will do this within the next seven days. I also require you to confirm whether you will arrange for the item to be collected or will reimburse me for the cost of returning it. "

Currys Response:
Thank you for your email dated 31st October 2014, please accept my apologies for the delay in this response.

I note the contents of your email with regards to the issue surrounding your recently purchased Zanussi cooker. I understand that you feel the product is not fit for purpose under the Sales of Goods Act 1979. Please be advised, according to the manufacturer the product is fit for purpose as there was no fault found with the appliance up on their engineer's inspection.

We are unable to comply with your request for an exchange or refund as explained above. Under the Sales of Goods Act 1979, the retailer has to provide remedy for a product that develops a fault or is not fit for purpose. The manufacturer has confirmed that the product is working to manufacturing standards and there is no fault, therefore we are unable to arrange an exchange or refund. If you require further assistance, please call our KNOWHOW™ Team on 0344 561 1234.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused and thank you for taking the time to contact us.

NewlySingle

Apologies for the long drawn out information above, I've also spoken to the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline and got a case number (they have passed it onto trading standards who hopefully will get in touch in the next 5 days)

I don't really know what to do next, would there be a case in small claims court? Currys are not taking any responsibility at all, re fulfilling any duty of care as a supplier of goods.

Mum has never used the cooker and has had it disconnected as it would be dangerous for her to use. She cant afford to buy another and this whole process is causing her health issues (she cant cook proper food and isn't sleeping due to how stressed this is making her)

Has anyone had any experience with something like this or have any advice?

LilElvis

I'm sorry but Currys have not done anything wrong. The oven not being suitable for your Mum does not make it not fit for purpose. An oven door protector might solve the problem for her at minimal cost - I bought a BabyDan one for around £30 from Amazon when my daughter was a toddler.

bod1467

IMHO - if the exterior of the door gets to such a temperature as to cause a physical burn then it is faulty, or is deficient in design.

NewlySingle

LilElvis wrote: »

I'm sorry but Currys have not done anything wrong. The oven not being suitable for your Mum does not make it not fit for purpose..

I know that there are probably people that do cook on ovens that get that hot but the very fact that she would have to fit additional equipment to make it safe to use (for her) would seem to make it not fit for purpose?

We may have taken the wrong track with our letter, maybe we should not have gone down the track of "fit for purpose" I've re-read the Sale of Goods provisions maybe a better approach would be to say the goods are not of satisfactory quality?

The goods must be:

• as described
• of satisfactory quality
• fit for purpose

This might let me go back with the points Bod1467 raised
"if the exterior of the door gets to such a temperature as to cause a physical burn then it is faulty, or is deficient in design. "

Zanussi have said it isn't faulty but using it would definitely put mum at risk of physical harm - hopefully it would be much harder to justify that the product is satisfactory for her.

Does anyone know if this might be a more successful route to take?
Thank you xxxx

wealdroam

NewlySingle wrote: »

I know that there are probably people that do cook on ovens that get that hot but the very fact that she would have to fit additional equipment to make it safe to use (for her) would seem to make it not fit for purpose?

No, probably not.

Fit for purpose is to do with what one might reasonably expect.

It also covers any particular purpose made known to the seller at the time of the sale.

Was the seller made aware at the time of sale of the need for the oven to remain cool to the touch?

SuperHan

Did she ask the sales person for a cool to touch oven?

If not, then it's unlikely that you'll get anywhere with Curry's or small claims court.

Unless she asked for an oven that operated with a cool exterior, then the product is fit for purpose, as it operates exactly as intended. No one was to know that it wasn't suitable for her unless she brought it to someone's attention, and it doesn't seem like she did.

Although you say she couldn't have seen the manual before unpacking, she could have asked the sales person, and that's why sales in shops are final. You'd have more come back from an online sale where it would not be quite as practical to make the same request.

That said, even if she did specifically request it, it's her word against the retailers, and so it'll be very difficult to prove. Especially given that Curry's will have much better legal representation than yourself given their available funds.

You could try and get an independent professional to say the same as bod, which would help your case, but given that cool to touch ovens even exist, it's likely that this is just an accepted potential design within the industry, and so there isn't a case, but worth a try if you do think it is faulty or deficient in design. If the report finds in your favour, you can claim the cost back from Currys, but you might find it advisable to have the report as evidence in court.

LilElvis

I think you are confusing "fit for purpose" with "suitable". The cooker does cook food, which is it's purpose, but the fact that the door becomes hot makes it unsuitable for your mother. My cooker did what it was supposed to do but it became unsuitable once my little girl started walking - so I added the protector to it. If I had applied your reasoning I should have been able to return it to the seller as it was no longer suitable. The only recourse I can see that you have is if you were to commission your own independent report which stated that the door temperature was so excessive that it would be considered a fault (there might be permitted safety standard). If this was the finding then Currys would refund you the cost of the report in addition to the price paid for the cooker.

NewlySingle

I'm not sure mum would have asked for a cool touch oven - until she was burnt, mum had never had an oven that got as hot as that on the outside. Everyone in her exercise class that she's spoken to about it (all around her age or older) have said they thought ovens were all cool now.

I'm not sure how she could possibly have known to ask the salesperson either, most reasonable people wouldn't ask if this oven comes with a third degree burn feature thrown in..:o

None of the literature that Currys gave her mentioned how hot the door gets - it is obviously a known issue as it's covered in the manual. (Which she didn't have until the cooker was unpacked and installed).

Surely a retailer has a "duty of care" to the people who buy their goods? Mum has clearly notified them of the fact that this cooker is unsafe for her to use (under normal operation).

Mum is a pensioner on limited income I'm not sure she could fund an expert (it effectively already says in their manual that the door gets hot demonstrating the risk)

I've gone on the UK govt website which goes into some detail about the interpretation of the sale of goods act and it's various sections.

"(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.
(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample."

The issue with how hot the door gets was not "specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention" there was no way mum could have found it out "by examination". It's unsafe for mums use and had already burnt her once.

To be honest I think it's pretty disgusting that Currys as a retailer seems to be telling mum she should be using an oven that has such a risk of injury. Vulnerable people should not have to fight to get a product replaced that could do them harm. :mad:

LilElvis - I understand the analogy that your using but in this case the cooker didn't become unsafe for mum, it was unsafe from day one (there was just no practicable way from the information supplied by Currys that mum could have know that).

wealdroam

NewlySingle wrote: »

Everyone in her exercise class that she's spoken to about it (all around her age or older) have said they thought ovens were all cool now.

Of course they did. They were just expressing sympathy with your mother. I cannot imagine any one of them being rude enough to say "serves you right... surely everyone know oven doors are hot", can you?

NewlySingle wrote: »

To be honest I think it's pretty disgusting that Currys as a retailer seems to be telling mum she should be using an oven that has such a risk of injury. Vulnerable people should not have to fight to get a product replaced that could do them harm.

I am not going to use the words you used, but I am disappointed that you think it Currys' responsibility to inform grown adults that oven doors may get hot.

Perhaps you would be happy if Currys' said to your mother "Sorry, I cannot sell this to you. Can you bring a younger relative with you to vouch for your safety?"

I am also "in my 60s", but not for much longer, and I do not consider myself vulnerable. Of course you know your mother, but the salesman doesn't. How is the salesman to decide, firstly whether the customer is vulnerable, and secondly whether to sell the goods to the prospective customer or not?

LilElvis

Currys are a business and they have done exactly what they are supposed to do. They sent an engineer who ascertained that the cooker is not faulty, and therefore your mother is not entitled to any remedy. If you truly believe that there is a fault then you must prove it by commissioning a report. Buying a protector to fix to the door is going to be the more realistic solution.