Small Claims Court - Currys Electrical?

giraffe69

Whatever the rights and wrongs saying that it was impossible to check the manual until the box had been opened is just not right. Ten seconds on google shows that manuals for all Zanussi ovens are freely available.
It seems to me that this comes down to doing some research before purchase.

NewlySingle

Just to update and answer some of the previous comments...
giraffe69- Mum does not have internet or email access
Which is why she made a special trip to the store, prior to purchasing and asked for lots of info on the freestanding cookers. She also asked for the specifications of the cookers to be printed out, explaining it was because she doesn't have internet access.
She made her buying decision based on the information Currys gave her.
The cooker arrived and was installed - she then had access to the manual. (Which warned that the heat of the glass may cause risk to pets and small children).

Mum was burnt before she even got to cook on the cooker -- the glass door gets really, really hot. Mum is subject to falls and has had modifications made to her house to reduce risk (e.g. moving the gas meter from the bottom of the stairs). She would not have purchased this cooker if she had known that the glass gets this hot, as if she fell against the cooker it would cause serious burns.

The customer services team told her that they would inform the store to exchange the cooker and she went to the store and exchange the cooker. The store manager refused to exchange the cooker and told mum it was her own fault she had been burnt and she should not have bought the cooker....

This has gone back and forward since the 18th October - mum has been unable to prepare proper food that whole time. There is a suitable cooker they could exchange it for, we have had numerous unreturned calls, and waited over a week for each email response. Today after another 43 mins with customer services where we went through everything again they called back to say they had spoken to the store and arranged for us to go in and exchange the cooker :T

10 mins later they called back to rescind their offer :mad::mad::mad:. The reasoning behind this was that as mum had been burnt and the manufacturer had said it was working normally by exchanging it for a safer cooker they would be admitting liability for the initial burn. :doh:

I pointed out that mum didn't have any lasting effects from that initial burn, she had run it under the cold tap until the burn had cooled and was fine. We had no intention of taking that further and were happy to write something to that effect, as they were removing the risk of further burns by exchanging the cooker for one she could use.

Unfortunately the customer services lady said her hands were tied, they now could not exchange the cooker as mum had been burnt....I asked "Are you saying that mum should use the current cooker even though it could put her at risk of serious harm?" and she replied that "she wouldn't advise that mum should use the cooker".

So now they are advising us not to use the product they sold us, while simultaneously refusing to exchange it for something that is safer for mum to use....
:wall:


Should we now go to small claims court & send the "letter before action" wealdroam mentioned? Can anyone see any avenues we haven't pursued, does the above crazy position and the two rescinded offers to exchange help?

Any help greatly appreciated
Nic

tomtontom

Nothing you have said changes the fact that the cooker is fit for (general) purpose, but it is not fit for your mother's individual circumstances. Unfortunately she does not have a right to return etc as she did not notify the store of her needs prior to purchase.

If you do still wish to pursue it a LBA would be your next step. They may offer a remedy to avoid the cost/ inconvenience of litigation.

lincroft1710

NewlySingle wrote: »

So now they are advising us not to use the product they sold us, while simultaneously refusing to exchange it for something that is safer for mum to use....
:wall:


Should we now go to small claims court & send the "letter before action" wealdroam mentioned? Can anyone see any avenues we haven't pursued, does the above crazy position and the two rescinded offers to exchange help?

Any help greatly appreciated
Nic

Why don't you try this posted by LilElvis as the 1st reply to your thread.

"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."


It would cost £30 for a claim via MoneyClaimOnLine.

Poppie68

I find it shocking for nearly two months your mum has been unable to cook, surely it makes sense to use what money you are considering using making a claim and purchase a new one? Sell the offending cooker and recoup your money.

Izadora

NewlySingle wrote: »

Just to update and answer some of the previous comments...
giraffe69- Mum does not have internet or email access

While I do sympathise that it's a rubbish situation for you mum to be in, it's clear that you have internet access. If you'd spent a fraction of the time researching ovens that you've spent posting about it here then you would've known before she bought it that it wasn't suitable.

Anyway, I hope you get it all sorted and your mum has a decent oven soon.

Gavin83

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?

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

The 'fit for purpose' guidelines are set for general use of the item, not specific to an individual. An ovens job is to cook food. Can the oven cook food? If so it's fit for purpose.

Currys don't have a duty of care to your mum. They can't inform the customer of every requirement the customer might have and what would be suitable. The customer needs to approach the sales person and say "I need a cool door oven, does this one do that?" at which point Currys can answer. Now if they gave the wrong answer you might have a case but this didn't happen here.

Now there will be some sort of operating temperature guidelines that manufacturers have to stick to. I don't know what these are but I'm sure a google search will throw up results quickly. You could check if your mums oven falls within these boundaries. However I'm willing to bet that with Zanussi being an established manufacturer they wouldn't produce and market a product that didn't fall within the guidelines. Still, it's worth a look. I also like the other posters suggestion of checking if two panes of glass are present or if in fact there should be two at all.

Personally I don't think you should have written that letter. It's one of those letters pushing your legal rights with incorrect facts and it's probably done nothing but put their backs up and made them more stubborn. Ideally you should have posted here first and we could have assisted in writing a letter that may have received better results. I'd probably write another letter, playing the sympathy card and ask if you can return the oven at your cost and replace it with another cooler operating model.

Besides this your only real option is to sell the oven and buy another model. Your lose money but it might be your best (only option) at the moment.

SuperHan

NewlySingle wrote: »

She made her buying decision based on the information Currys gave her.

Which would be fine, if she had told Currys what information was pertinent to her.

Currys can't possible tell everyone everything about every product (I imagine you would be claiming she had been confused if they started talking about 3D Hot Air, kWH usages etc etc). The customer must take some responsibility for the information they want to receive.

There's no reason she shouldn't have clarified that all ovens have cool doors if it was so important to the purchase.

You might have an argument if it had been sold as a cool to touch door. But your mother misinformed herself and didn't clarify with an 'expert'.

She could try suing the people who told her that all ovens should be cool to touch?

ThumbRemote

Izadora wrote: »

While I do sympathise that it's a rubbish situation for you mum to be in, it's clear that you have internet access. If you'd spent a fraction of the time researching ovens that you've spent posting about it here then you would've known before she bought it that it wasn't suitable.

Anyway, I hope you get it all sorted and your mum has a decent oven soon.

OPs mother bought the oven, not the OP. While it's true that OP could have researched, this would rely on her being asked to do so by her mother.

ThumbRemote

Gavin83 wrote: »

The 'fit for purpose' guidelines are set for general use of the item, not specific to an individual. An ovens job is to cook food. Can the oven cook food? If so it's fit for purpose.

That's not strictly true. The wording of the law is that an item must be of "satisfactory quality."

That is then broken down to include "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied" and "safety" as two aspects.

Gavin83 wrote: »

Currys don't have a duty of care to your mum. They can't inform the customer of every requirement the customer might have and what would be suitable.

Currys most certainly do have a duty of care to their customers.

I think there is a fair chance in small claims court, on the basis that:
a) the purchaser has injured themselves on the oven. This demonstrates that it isn't safe as per the Sale of Goods Act.
b) Currys did not make the manual, which includes a dedicated section for "Children and Vulnerable People Safety" available for her to view, which could be a 'misleading omission' under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

I certainly wouldn't say it was a clear cut case, and as per other advice it may cost less and be way less hassle to just sell the cooker on second hand, but I also don't think it can be blamed entirely on the purchaser.