Defectify Applicance - Replacement Advice

wealdroam

Jason, have you even given the seller the opportunity to provide a remedy? Not that you need to when using S75 of course.

LilElvis

Strange.

Post #1 - the goods are made by Siemens

Post #20 - they are now Samsung

agrinnall

LilElvis wrote: »

Strange.

Post #1 - the goods are made by Siemens

Post #20 - they are now Samsung

I think that the appliances in post #1 are for cooking while post #20 refers to a fridge freezer. Clearly the OP has had a lengthy run of bad luck .

jason.parker.86

You are correct- appliances are all Siemens except for American fridge freezer which was Samsung.

In answer to your question in the space of a phone call Lloyds have refunded the full amount of almost £8k to my card and logged a dispute with the online retailer.

They are saying that if its not like for like they either have to replace the whole lot or refund me.

Finally I have given the retailer almost a year to put this right. Reasonable is the key word and I've been more than reasonable to now demand a replacement which is satisfactory to myself.

lincroft1710

For the benefit of those MSErs who need to approach Lloyds Bank or other credit card providers, could you please post exactly what you said to LB that persuaded them to immediately refund almost £8K back to your card.

System

jason.parker.86 wrote: »

You are correct- appliances are all Siemens except for American fridge freezer which was Samsung.

In answer to your question in the space of a phone call Lloyds have refunded the full amount of almost £8k to my card and logged a dispute with the online retailer.

They are saying that if its not like for like they either have to replace the whole lot or refund me.

Finally I have given the retailer almost a year to put this right. Reasonable is the key word and I've been more than reasonable to now demand a replacement which is satisfactory to myself.

As the retailer has 7 days to defend the chargeback then I doubt if they have refunded it.

If you are successful then bear in mind that there will be a counterclaim through the courts for either the cost of the stuff you still have or the return of it. No retailer is willing to be £8k down without fighting tooth and nail to get some of it back

Although as said before I think that this is all BS

ETA

Something I missed which makes the above scenario unlikely

The Financial Ombudsman Service says that the time limits between card providers vary from between 40 and 180 days from the date of transaction.
Here are the limits that apply to the three biggest issuers:

Visa 120 days,
Mastercard 120 days
Amex within 3 months of appearing on statement

It is over 400 days since OP was aware of problem

wealdroam

!!!!!! wrote: »

ETA

Something I missed which makes the above scenario unlikely

The Financial Ombudsman Service says that the time limits between card providers vary from between 40 and 180 days from the date of transaction.
Here are the limits that apply to the three biggest issuers:

Visa 120 days,
Mastercard 120 days
Amex within 3 months of appearing on statement

It is over 400 days since OP was aware of problem

The OP was talking about a Section 75 claim, for which there is no time limit.

Although I do agree that it seems very strange that the card issuer has refunded £8k less than 12 hours from the claim being presented.

jason.parker.86

Hi Guys
Sorry for my late reply I've been busy spending my £8k... Hehe

Only joking!

Ok for the benefit of others here is exactly what happened. The retailer confirmed to me in writing they would not be replacing the whole set of appliances only the defective one, after which I demanded a refund for my defective appliance to enable me to buy a graded one off eBay to replace it with. After a few hours they again confirmed they would not be issuing a refund as they have agreed to replace it and as far as they were concerned they had fulfilled their obligation under the SOGA.

So I phoned lloyds who began to raise a dispute but half way through the call the gentleman taking the details said that in his opinion I had grounds for a S75 claim and took my details. Within 20 minutes Lloyds called me back and asked how I wished to communicate regarding the claim, via email or post to which I confirmed it would be by email as it's more convenient to forward evidence.

I again repeated my sequence of events and they confirmed that under S75 my claim was indeed valid as the contract to supply me matching appliances has now been broken. She said that in order to fulfil this contract a matching appliance had to be provided and as they already confirmed this was not possible there was no case to defend.

She confirmed to me although out of the £8k (£7,700 to be exact) only £4k was for the ovens and warming drawers they could not issue me a refund for the actual cost only the full cost of the transaction and from this I would be expected to go buy myself replacement appliances.

I told her that I wouldn't do this until I had the money in my hand and she said that they have issues a £7,700 credit to the card which wouldn't show for a few weeks but instead my full balance payment of £3,400 which is due in 2 weeks time would not be collected as on the system my card is in credit. Again I would like to repeat there is no actual credit showing on my statement it's effectively a virtual credit. I have no idea how this works and quite frankly don't care.

If I'm honest I was amazed at Lloyds attitude which I was that impressed with I wrote a letter praising Kelly's professional attitude in dealing with my problem. She went one step further to reassure me that under S75 Lloyds are jointly liable for the transaction and that irrespective of what the retailer says or does they are satisfied that the claim is valid and will handle the £7,700 with the retailer direct.


So in short... am I happy? Sort of... I would have been much happier if my appliance worked from November when it was installed, the idiot driver didn't smash me plant pot and try cover up (I'll upload to YouTube soon and you can all see for yourself how stupid he looks), if I hadn't have had to call out Siemens upwards of 8 times to repair microwave and downdraft extractor and now find someone to remove my ovens and drawers and replace with new ones.

My advice for anyone buying matching appliances in future is get the invoice to state that appliances match identically. This would make the case under S75 even more bullet proof.

jason.parker.86

Btw here is a great extract from the financial ombudsman which draws some parallels between what I went though and this lady:

Miss V used her credit card to buy a dinner service from a homeware website. When it arrived, she was disappointed to find that it was not a properly matching set. Each item was decorated with an identical design, apart from two of the plates. These were decorated in a way that was similar to the rest of the set - but that had some noticeable differences.

She emailed the supplier and asked it to exchange the dinner service for one that comprised matching items. The supplier told her it was unable to do this. It had sold out of sets in the design she had ordered and was unable to obtain further stocks. It offered instead to exchange her dinner service for anything that totalled the same price (£199) and that was currently available on its website.

Miss V did not see anything else on the website that she liked, so she asked for her money back. The supplier repeated its offer to exchange the dinner service for something else but it refused to give her a refund.

As Miss V had paid for the dinner service by credit card, she wrote to her card provider. She explained what had happened and asked for a refund, under section 75. She enclosed copies of her email exchanges with the supplier, as well as photographs showing the differences between the non-matching plates and the rest of the dinner service.

The card provider told Miss V that it had no liability to her under section 75. It said this was because she had 'failed to take sufficient steps to resolve the matter with the supplier.' She had also failed to return the dinner service to the supplier to show that she was 'formally rejecting it.' Miss V then referred her complaint to us.

complaint upheld
We were satisfied, from the evidence Miss V had provided, that the dinner service was not a matching set. So she had not been given what she had paid for with her credit card. Under section 75, she could seek redress from the supplier of either the goods or the credit.

We thought Miss V had taken reasonable steps to try to resolve matters with the supplier. Despite what the card provider appeared to believe, however, she was not obliged to have done this - or indeed to have returned the dinner service - before she could make a claim to the card provider.

We told the card provider that Miss V was not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues with the supplier before claiming under section 75. And we said we could see no reason why it should not pay the claim. The card provider argued that if it gave Miss V a refund then she would still have the dinner set, as well as getting her money back. It did not think this was fair.

Miss V had already made it clear that she did not want to keep the dinner service. But we did not think it reasonable, in the circumstances, that she should be expected to arrange and pay for its return, particularly in view of its weight and fragile nature.

We told the card provider to refund the amount that Miss V had paid for the dinner service. We said that if it wanted her to return the dinner service then it should pay the courier costs and arrange a convenient time to have the dinner service collected from Miss V.