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

vtc6

neilmcl wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, "satisfactory quality" then.

I don't think they'll be able to show user damage because I have photos showing the enamel coming off in two places, and multiple photos showing it progressing over time. There is no sign of impact, no indentation, nothing, no signs of abrasives. There's also witness marks where the bare metal has started oxidising for different time periods as the paint gradually flaked off.

neilmcl

Personally I'd just accept the visit, if it doesn't go in your favour then you always have the option of taking out you own independent inspection and going down that route.

naedanger

My view is you (the OP) should issue a letter before action.

Provided you have made clear the item will be made available for Curry's (or their agent i.e. Indesit) to test if they wish then you have done all that you need to. Curry's have no legal right to demand that you must agree to pay for their testing if they don't find a fault. (I suspect they may be able to sue you for the fee after the event, if it turns out it should have been obvious there was no fault e.g. if you obviously damaged the item.)

Provided you can convince the court the item is not now of satisfactory condition the onus will be on Curry's to prove that its current condition was not due to an inherent fault. And that will not be easy if they have not tested it. It will be no defence for them to say that they did not test it because you would not agree to pay the fee if it turns out not to be faulty.

vtc6

Naedanger, that's pretty much what I was thinking. My final letter/email to them will state clearly that I am willing for them to come check it.

Neilmcl, you may be right as well, your route may be the simplest. I just feel like I'm opening myself up to their fees by taking that route, and I'm not obliged to.

naedanger

vtc6 wrote: »

Naedanger, that's pretty much what I was thinking. My final letter/email to them will state clearly that I am willing for them to come check it.

Neilmcl, you may be right as well, your route may be the simplest. I just feel like I'm opening myself up to their fees by taking that route, and I'm not obliged to.

It also doesn't even sound like the test is independent. An Indesit tester (or even an Indesit arranged test) hardly sounds impartial given it is an Indesit appliance. Furthermore I would want a say in the choice of tester before even considering offering to pay in any circumstance. (These are all points I would NOT put in my letter before action.)

I would simply say if they wished to test the appliance they, or their agent, were free to do so, but in my view it does not need a test to show that it's not of satisfactory quality. Also state you will not enter into any other correspondence regarding testing other than to agree a suitable time should they decide they will test it.

I agree you should not refer to the item as being unfit for purpose.

CoolHotCold

There is nothing in the SoGA that states it must be independent.

You are free to arrange your own, if you wish to go down the SoGA route.

Furthermore you cannot limit your liability, so you cannot stipulate you won't pay anything regardless.

Also I'd like to point out that any court case won't be viewed favourably on your behalf. Currys have agreed to send a engineer out (though Indeset), but it is yourself who is blocking it.


As it stands, I'd phone Currys get them to note in your account you're accepting the visit to inspect the item for satisfactory quality under your consumer rights.

Then one of three things happen.

1) The Independent engineer (Because Indisit don't employee engineers and use 3rd party agents) will state it's faulty and needs replaced/repaired.

2) Engineer will say nothing wrong/you did something and you'll be billed for his time.

3) Engineer will say nothing wrong/you did something, and you won't be billed.

If it's 2, you need to arrange your own engineer to dispute it (BUT you must pay for both engineers costs, and reclaim off Currys if in your favour).

If it's 3, you need to arrange for your own engineer to dispute it (again, pay this cost, reclaim of currys if in your favour).

naedanger

CoolHotCold wrote: »

There is nothing in the SoGA that states it must be independent.

Agreed. If Curry's want to test the appliance they can choose who they like.

You are free to arrange your own, if you wish to go down the SoGA route.

Agreed. But the OP does not need to get the item tested. They only need to show, on the balance of probability, the item is not currently of satisfactory quality. A few photos will probably be sufficient.

Furthermore you cannot limit your liability, so you cannot stipulate you won't pay anything regardless.

The OP is not stipulating they won't pay anything regardless. They are simply saying they won't agree to pay anything. If someone is liable for something you don't need them to agree in advance that they are liable. So why are Curry's asking for this agreement?)

Also I'd like to point out that any court case won't be viewed favourably on your behalf. Currys have agreed to send a engineer out (though Indeset), but it is yourself who is blocking it.

No the OP is making the opposite clear, namely that Curry's are free to test it, if they wish.

As it stands, I'd phone Currys get them to note in your account you're accepting the visit to inspect the item for satisfactory quality under your consumer rights.

The OP is planning to make it clear in their letter before action that they are not blocking Curry's from getting their own test if they wish.

Then one of three things happen.

1) The Independent engineer (Because Indisit don't employee engineers and use 3rd party agents) will state it's faulty and needs replaced/repaired.

2) Engineer will say nothing wrong/you did something and you'll be billed for his time.

3) Engineer will say nothing wrong/you did something, and you won't be billed.

If it's 2, you need to arrange your own engineer to dispute it (BUT you must pay for both engineers costs, and reclaim off Currys if in your favour).

If it's 3, you need to arrange for your own engineer to dispute it (again, pay this cost, reclaim of currys if in your favour).

If the OP does not agree to pay for the test then Curry's will pay the tester. In the event the engineer finds nothing wrong with it, then Curry's can sue the OP for any losses that they have incurred, if they wish. Whether they win will depend on the merits of the case.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

Agreed. But the OP does not need to get the item tested. They only need to show, on the balance of probability, the item is not currently of satisfactory quality. A few photos will probably be sufficient.

Yet the question remains, if there is no doubt in OP's mind that its an inherent fault and not user damaged, why are they so reluctant to take the engineer currys are offering?

That in itself could be used to show that - on the balance of probability - the op believes it to be user damage and not an inherent fault.

Marktheshark

This is the latest "put you off" trick by currys.

If the judge believes a report is necessary they can order one be prepared.

They will settle in the waiting room usually by sending a non legal rep, which I would ignore and make them pay full costs for getting slung out of court for not sending a solicitor.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Yet the question remains, if there is no doubt in OP's mind that its an inherent fault and not user damaged, why are they so reluctant to take the engineer currys are offering?

The question remains if the OP is liable for the cost of the test, should it show there is no fault, why are Curry's insisting the OP agrees in advance to pay in that circumstance?

And while the OP is strongly of the view the fault was inherent they might not be 100% certain.

That in itself could be used to show that - on the balance of probability - the op believes it to be user damage and not an inherent fault.

No. It just shows the OP does not want to take on any liability they don't need to.

If I was the OP I would be happy to concede I was not 100% certain that Curry's tester would conclude there was an inherent fault. That is miles away from showing on the balance of probability I considered it was user damage.