Charged due to small print rule

ami66

A household item has developed a fault within the two year warranty period so an engineer was arranged to fix it free of charge.

Typical of these type of appointments initially we we're told it would be between 9am and 5pm.

However the day before we are told our slot is now 8am to 11am.

I leave for work at 8am and my husband had an early morning appointment but can be back at home for 8.30am.

Between 8am and 8.30 our 16 1/5 year old A Level student son would be in the house. He's already dealt with heating engineers, the gas cooker man, the dishwasher man and the sky man so is unfazed by yet another repair man calling.

I wait until 8.05am before leaving just in case we are the first call but with no sign I go leaving said son in charge.

At 8.11am while I'm still driving to work I get a call from son to say engineer has arrived and left stating he couldn't do the work with a child in the house alone. He refused to wait while my son called me or my husband. I could have returned home and my husband was already on his way home.

Now we are being charged for a 'failed visit due to a minor home alone'.

Having spoken to the company they are saying that their terms & conditions state a responsible over 18 has to be present. We have received no copies of the terms when arranging the visit as all dealings have been via phone so can we be charged like this?

Not only is the charge £63 but we will be charged another £30 if we don't pay within 14 days!

McKneff

The term will probably be on your original warranty documents.


Sorry, but I am totally with the Engineer on this one. I certainly wouldn't enter a house to repair something where only a minor is present. For all sorts of reasons.....

themull1

if the engineer knew someone was coming back, he could have waited a few minutes. He should have rung you of your husband or got his company to do it to find out the time you could return.

sinizterguy

It is not appropriate to leave a minor in charge and expect an engineer to stay in the house with them.

Too much can go wrong for the either party.

Of their schedule is tight enough, they will choose not to wait outside for you to turn up - because the vast majority of people work with stretchy time concept and 5 minutes usually means 20.

So I am entirely in support of the engineer and the company behind them.

Fosterdog

I wonder what would happen then if your son lived alone, there are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds that live on their own does this stupid rule mean that they aren't entitled to a repair on any appliance they buy?

sinizterguy

Fosterdog wrote: »

I wonder what would happen then if your son lived alone, there are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds that live on their own does this stupid rule mean that they aren't entitled to a repair on any appliance they buy?

If the company behind the warranty requires an adult to be present - due to their insurance, maybe CRB checks requirements, etc - then alternate arrangements may need to be made.

If the company will not pay the additional costs to make these alternate arrangements, the customer may need to do so.

The repair will be done when the requirements are met.

unholyangel

I'm not actually sure of the in's and outs of this tbh.

I mean the guarantee was provided at time of sale under the contract with the retailer. OP has paid no consideration for the repair visit so didnt have a contract for it - it was carried out under pre-existing obligations.

Even if there was a contract (ignoring the consideration for the moment), given they were doing it for free....they have suffered no loss as they wouldnt have received payment for that visit. The same way if an engineer fails to turn up, we cant claim for the first day we have to take off as we would have had to take that off whether the other party breached the contract or not. Which brings me to my next point.

They're effectively profiting from a breach of contract (again ignoring consideration and also presuming they have informed you of this as part of your warranty or on the phone when you contacted them - as consumers cannot be bound to hidden terms) and I have a suspicion that such a term would likely be seen as a financial penalty. Unfair terms guidance states the following:

5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A
requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable
pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive
penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the
extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law. Other types
of disproportionate sanction are considered below – Part III, Group 18(c).

So no, they can't charge you for the visit today imo but they may be able to charge a call out fee for a second visit (but not for the repair). But they'd only be able to do that if a contract exists.

ThumbRemote

McKneff wrote: »

The term will probably be on your original warranty documents

That's certainly the first thing for the OP to check.

ami66 wrote: »

Typical of these type of appointments initially we we're told it would be between 9am and 5pm.

However the day before we are told our slot is now 8am to 11am.

Also I would think this would be sufficient to avoid paying any sort of charge. Initially the OP was told one thing, and agreed on that basis. The company then changed the agreement.

Were they given any chance to agree to this, or were they just informed by text? Could make a difference.

bris

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm not actually sure of the in's and outs of this tbh.

I mean the guarantee was provided at time of sale under the contract with the retailer. OP has paid no consideration for the repair visit so didnt have a contract for it - it was carried out under pre-existing obligations.

Even if there was a contract (ignoring the consideration for the moment), given they were doing it for free....they have suffered no loss as they wouldnt have received payment for that visit. The same way if an engineer fails to turn up, we cant claim for the first day we have to take off as we would have had to take that off whether the other party breached the contract or not. Which brings me to my next point.

They're effectively profiting from a breach of contract (again ignoring consideration and also presuming they have informed you of this as part of your warranty or on the phone when you contacted them - as consumers cannot be bound to hidden terms) and I have a suspicion that such a term would likely be seen as a financial penalty. Unfair terms guidance states the following:



So no, they can't charge you for the visit today imo but they may be able to charge a call out fee for a second visit (but not for the repair). But they'd only be able to do that if a contract exists.

What are you babbling on about, they expect to do one visit not two so they have wasted a visit and are having to go back for a second time. Do you think they should just keep going back free?

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

What are you babbling on about, they expect to do one visit not two so they have wasted a visit and are having to go back for a second time. Do you think they should just keep going back free?

Which is why I said they may be able to charge for a second visit. But they can't charge for the first visit. That isnt a loss caused by any potential breach of contract.

If I offered you a free consultation and you fail to turn up. I cant then charge you a fee. It may mean I'm unlikely to give you another freebie....but thats another matter.

JethroUK

Fosterdog wrote: »

I wonder what would happen then if your son lived alone, there are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds that live on their own does this stupid rule mean that they aren't entitled to a repair on any appliance they buy?

16/17 year old s cannot sign a contract, so you won't find them living alone unless "an adult" has signed rental agreement for them and this same "adult" will need to be present for the exact same reasons

That said the repair man could've waited a few minutes for an adult to return