Curry's insiting engineer visit chargeable to confirm fault on new cooker

vtc6

Hi everyone.

I bought an Indisit cooker from Curry's a few months ago. The enamel has been flaking off it for no apparent reason. It's kept in a normal heated home, average humidity etc and more and more enamel is flaking off even when it's not in use.

I reported the issue to Curry's who said I need to telephone Indisit to arrange an engineer visit. I called Indisit who said that an engineer visit is chargeable if it turns out that the fault is not covered by warranty. So I didn't proceed because the warranty may not cover cosmetic damage (according to Curry's).

I went back to Curry's saying that if a fault develops within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the product is fit for purpose and that if they want to try to prove it's not a fault by sending an engineer then they can do this at their own cost. And that I won't accept an engineer visit if there's potentially a charge. Curry's responded saying that nothing will happen without a visit and repeated that the visit may be chargeable if they deem the fault is not covered by warranty.

It's now been several weeks of slow emails and phone calls and nothing has moved. Seems we've reached a stalemate of some sort.

I know there's several ways to progress this now, but what, in your opinions, is the best next step?

I'm pretty good with letter writing etc, and I've been thru small claims court before, doesn't scare me, I just don't want to jump the gun.

Thanks!!

Fosterdog

They are well within their rights to charge for the engineer visit if it is found to be something not covered by warranty or SoGA.

If you are certain it is a manufacturing fault/defect you should either let their engineer visit (and accept any charges if it goes against you) or pay for your own engineer to give a report stating the fault is inherent.

System

Agree, if you are certain, let them send the Engineer...

Otherwise, credit card company?

wealdroam

vtc6 wrote: »

Curry's responded saying that nothing will happen without a visit and repeated that the visit may be chargeable if they deem the fault is not covered by warranty.

That is where Currys are going wrong.
They should not be using the word 'warranty' in that context.

Perhaps they should be saying something like "nothing will happen without a visit, and if the fault is found not to be inherent then the visit may be chargeable".

An inherent fault is one that was present at the time of purchase but not necessarily apparent at that time. I suppose in your case that may mean, for example, that the metal was poorly prepared before enamelling, e.g. rusty, or maybe the enamel itself is faulty.

Whilst a warranty's terms may exclude such problems, The Sale of Goods Act does not.

You are of course right that it is for the seller to prove the goods are not inherently faulty during the first six months following a sale, and they must do that at their cost.

prowla

So, they'll charge if it's not covered by warranty.
But enamel shouldn't just flake off, so it seems like it should be.
Have you tried searching the internet for reports of this happening - they could be opting for plausible deniability...?

vtc6

Thing is that cosmetic damage is often not covered by warranty, so there is a good chance I will be charged for the visit. However as Wealdroam says, just because the warranty doesn't cover it doesn't mean consumer law doesn't. I think that under SoGA this would be an open and shut case in my favour because the product isn't fit for purpose.

A couple of posts here have said that Currys are in their right to charge for the visit if my claim isn't valid. I admit I've only cursively read the Sale of Goods Act (it's not exactly exciting reading), but I didn't see anything in there enabling Curry's to charge. Fosterdog, do you know where and in which act it says that Curry's are in their right to charge? I'd like to have a read so I know what I'm getting into.

In the mean time I'm going to bet that Curry's are not in their right to charge. As SoGA says, my contract is with Curry's, not Indisit, Curry's are liable. As SoGA says the onus is on Curry's to prove the product is fit. It doesn't say that the customer has to pay for Curry's to prove the product is fit. If Curry's later decide that my claim was spurious they can try to charge me for the visit.

I'm going to wait for one more response from Curry's before I send them a final request. I suppose then I need to fill out a claim form in the court. Seems such a waste seeing as this seems like such a simple case.

[Deleted User]

What cooker was it so I know to avoid it? I will be buying one soon.In fact, forget it, I will just make sure I don't buy anything Indesit.

vtc6

According to the invoice it's a INDESIT - I5GG1. But they had in fact sent me the wrong cooker, correct series, wrong colour. I assumed I'd ordered the wrong cooker, so started using it, and now I can't return it because I believe that by using it I have accepted the product. However, in this case Curry's have said they will probably give me a part refund for having sent the wrong colour, but only after we've resolved the other issue of the flaking enamel.

Fosterdog

I don't know the exact wording but I'm basing it on a recent experience.

A customer where I work brought in a non-working laptop that was four months old, we gave the warning we always give. If it turns out to be a software issue or a fault caused by user damaged there will be a charge for the the diagnostics. When opened up we found a liquid spill inside the laptop, it was a thick brown syrup consistent with a dark coloured carbonated soft drink.

The free repair was refused used and the customer was asked to pay £40 (our standard diagnostic charge) the customer refused and started an MCOL claim against the company. The company counter claimed for the £40 as a reasonable charge for the work carried out and the company won, the customer was ordered to pay the £40. As the item was user damaged it was no longer a SoGA or warranty claim so the charge was a valid one.

The company wouldn't usually issue a claim for such a small sum, it was only done this time as a counter claim because the guy put in a claim first.

If your cooker turns out to be user damaged then it would not be covered under SoGA nor warranty so there is no automatic right for you to have a free assessment, the retailer only has to bear all costs if it is covered by SoGA, if not then they don't have to. There is nowhere in the law that says they can't charge if it is found to be outside your SoGA rights as you have then lost the protection of the Act.

To me the enamel flaking off a cooker so soon unless something heavy has dropped on it to cause a chip or extremely harsh chemicals have been used it sounds very unreasonable and I can't see how it wouldn't be covered, but I am not an expert on kitchen appliances or enamel coating.

My own cooker was knocked slightly against the worktop when it was installed, a chip of enamel came off around half a cm diameter but there has been no further flaking or damage and it has been used and cleaned daily for three years. There must be something wrong with the base under the enamel if it is flaking.

vtc6

Fosterdog, thanks for the info on that experience.

So Curry's can claim their reasonable charge if the inspection shows user damage or something like that.

But there's still the issue that if I accept a visit from Indisit, then Indisit will charge if the damage is not covered by warranty. Whereas I'm attempting to claim under SoGA because SoGA will most likely cover my problem, whereas warranty might not.

So I'm still better of refusing the Indisit visit, and Curry's can arrange their own inspection (seeing as my contract is with Curry's and not the menufacturer and the onus is on Curry's to prove fit for purpose), and if they somehow deem it to be user damage then they can charge me.

neilmcl

vtc6 wrote: »

Thing is that cosmetic damage is often not covered by warranty, so there is a good chance I will be charged for the visit. However as Wealdroam says, just because the warranty doesn't cover it doesn't mean consumer law doesn't. I think that under SoGA this would be an open and shut case in my favour because the product isn't fit for purpose.

For someone that's been down this process before I wouldn't keep quoting the phrase "not fit for purpose". The fact is the cooker IS fit for purpose, the correct terminology to use is that it's not of satisfactory quality. I also wouldn't agree that it's an open and shut case, after all it could quite easily be caused by user damage.

BTW its indesit.