B&Q Kitchen Disaster - Reported to Furniture Ombudsman

maxilee

LilElvis wrote: »

A warranty is in addition to your legal rights. If it was an important part of the decision as to whether you would purchase a kitchen then why didn't you ask? B&Q have done nothing wrong in this regard.

No one, including B&Q, have suggested that you shouldn't, or can't, use your kitchen. The seller has surmised, without inspection, that the damage to the doors has been caused by excess moisture in your kitchen and have then told you that in the event of further blistering they will require an independent report before providing any further remedy to prove that your negligence is not the cause. As you are adamant that this is not the case then there won't be a problem. You will get a report, it will show that the fault was due to poor manufacture rather than a user issue and B&Q will be legally obliged to remedy the issue. Losing confidence in a product does not entitle you to a refund.

B&Q have told me that they are prepared to replace two doors as a goodwill gesture. They have told me that, in their opinion, these doors are damaged due to water damage (they haven't inspected them). They have told me that ANY moisture within the kitchen could cause this and that is why they are confident that it is water damage.

They will not put this in writing and just keep deflecting. I have written a long complaint and asked repeatedly for a written response and they will not provide one. I have asked for their formal complaints procedure, followed it and again requested a written response - they will not provide anything more than a couple of lines that does not address the issues raised. I have sent the email correspondence to the furniture ombudsman and it's 18 pages long. I've been trying to get an answer since the beginning of October.

I am now loathe to use the kitchen as a kitchen because B&Q have shown me that they will blame any damage on me, regardless. That is not just losing confidence in a product, it's a company telling me that the product is not fit for the purpose I bought it for, in good faith.

I didn't come on for an argument - it's not unreasonable to expect your kitchen to have a warranty. Yes, I should have double checked but at that point in time I didn't expect B&Q to act like an eel covered in soap. It's low tactics they are using, refusing to put anything in writing and refusing to admit that their product could be faulty.

Of course I know that they won't refund the cost of my kitchen but the form asked me what I want - I want a kitchen I can use as a kitchen. The only way to get that is to have B&Q refund me and I go elsewhere. They asked so I told them my ideal scenario.

I'm glad this has helped another user with their decision on where to buy their kitchen from - I wish I had known beforehand just how bad B&Q are at providing usable kitchens.

(Apologies for all the missing letters, wireless keyboard issues)

k3lvc

maxilee wrote: »

B&Q have told me that they are prepared to replace two doors as a goodwill gesture. They have told me that, in their opinion, these doors are damaged due to water damage (they haven't inspected them). They have told me that ANY moisture within the kitchen could cause this and that is why they are confident that it is water damage.

They will not put this in writing and just keep deflecting. I have written a long complaint and asked repeatedly for a written response and they will not provide one. I have asked for their formal complaints procedure, followed it and again requested a written response - they will not provide anything more than a couple of lines that does not address the issues raised. I have sent the email correspondence to the furniture ombudsman and it's 18 pages long. I've been trying to get an answer since the beginning of October (they'll still be reading it)

I am now loathe to use the kitchen as a kitchen (what will you use it for then ?) because B&Q have shown me that they will blame any damage on me, regardless. That is not just losing confidence in a product, it's a company telling me that the product is not fit for the purpose I bought it for, in good faith.

I didn't come on for an argument - it's not unreasonable to expect your kitchen to have a warranty. Yes, I should have double checked but at that point in time I didn't expect B&Q to act like an eel covered in soap. It's low tactics they are using, refusing to put anything in writing and refusing to admit that their product could be faulty.

Of course I know that they won't refund the cost of my kitchen but the form asked me what I want - I want a kitchen I can use as a kitchen. The only way to get that is to have B&Q refund me and I go elsewhere. They asked so I told them my ideal scenario.

I'm glad this has helped another user with their decision on where to buy their kitchen from - I wish I had known beforehand just how bad B&Q are at providing usable kitchens.

(Apologies for all the missing letters, wireless keyboard issues)

From what you've told us your kitchen is 'usable' - it's just not to the cosmetic standards that you're expecting after 18mths.

Whilst no-one's suggesting that a kitchen should only last 12mths your expectations of a refund are unrealistic - particularly when combined with the 12mth guarantee that they offer. Your time to check quality/finish/fittings was before purchase and make your complaint (if any) during or immediately post fitting.

Good luck with your claim/complaint and let us know how you get on

DCFC79

So you sent the furniture ombudsman the email correspondence that's 18 pages long.

The person going to read that will need some pick me ups to finish reading it.

The kitchen is usable to use it as 1.

Let us know how the complaint goes.

maxilee

Thanks to the posters who've offered support/advice/understanding.

To the others, maybe I'm not explaining myself very well.

The fault developed in October - I couldn't complain about it before because it only happened then.

I contacted them in October.

Since October, I've been trying to get an answer to my complaint from B&Q.

The Ombudsman ask you to provide the info that I've provided - I mentioned the 18 pages as it's relevant to how much correspondence has gone between us and they still haven't answered a question. The information I've sent shows them blatantly ignoring the question.

My kitchen is usable as a room but from what they have said I will do further damage to it as I can't cook (ie use it as a kitchen) without water. I could probably prepare salads as long as I have all the windows open and an industrial strength extractor fan on full power.

I could have kept my old kitchen if I wasn't bothered about it being of a particular cosmetic standard. That's part of the reason we bought a new one, because the old one looked crap.

Not really sure what you guys are getting out of the self-satisfied 'funny' remarks? It would be more helpful to others to only comment if you've been in a similar situation/have actual knowledge and constructive advice but hey-ho...It is the school holidays and I suppose you only need to worry about the cost of a Greggs pasty on your way to assembly. Some of us however, use this forum as we've spent real money on large purchases and we don't like big businesses like B&Q taking the mickey out of us with sub-standard tat when we expect goods that are fit for purpose.

But thanks for your input.

LilElvis

maxilee wrote: »

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well.

The fault developed in October - I couldn't complain about it before because it only happened then.

I contacted them in October.

Since October, I've been trying to get an answer to my complaint from B&Q.

The Ombudsman ask you to provide the info that I've provided - I mentioned the 18 pages as it's relevant to how much correspondence has gone between us and they still haven't answered a question. The information I've sent shows them blatantly ignoring the question.

My kitchen is usable as a room but from what they have said I will do further damage to it as I can't cook (ie use it as a kitchen) without water. I could probably prepare salads as long as I have all the windows open and an industrial strength extractor fan on full power.

I could have kept my old kitchen if I wasn't bothered about it being of a particular cosmetic standard. That's part of the reason we bought a new one, because the old one looked crap.

Not really sure what you guys are getting out of the self-satisfied 'funny' remarks? It would be more helpful to others to only comment if you've been in a similar situation/have actual knowledge and constructive advice but hey-ho...It is the school holidays and I suppose you only need to worry about the cost of a Greggs pasty on your way to assembly. Some of us however, use this forum as we've spent real money on large purchases and we don't like big businesses like B&Q taking the mickey out of us with sub-standard tat when we expect goods that are fit for purpose.

But thanks for your input.

No, I haven't bought a crap kitchen from B&Q but I have told you what your legal rights are.

Of course a seller isn't going to admit liability in writing if they haven't inspected it - it would be foolish to do so.

This is the "Consumer Rights" board - where posters get advice as to their rights under applicable laws, if you want to rail against the poor customer service you have received then look at posting in the "Praise, Vent and Warnings" Board.

Whilst we are always advised to "be nice to Newbies" it is a two way street - insulting members is not likely to result in helpful advice, and you are incredibly rude. I can only surmise that you have exhibited the same attitude with the staff at B&Q, contributing towards their apathy in dealing with your issues.

maxilee

I'm rude? You've made this assumption based on the fact that I didn't appreciate obnoxious replies and called people on it.

There's a word for that...

I'm not a newbie, just changed email address and can't remember my old login details. I'm not a stranger to consumer rights either, just looking for some help in figuring out if I was being unrealistic from an unbiased PoV. Instead, it appears that the in-crowd just want to twist the knife and make little funnies at other's expense to keep themselves popular. Not much changes. Way to go.

maxilee

Oh, and I haven't been rude to B&Q either. That's another assumption on your part.

LilElvis

maxilee wrote: »

I'm rude? You've made this assumption based on the fact that I didn't appreciate obnoxious replies and called people on it.

There's a word for that...

I'm not a newbie, just changed email address and can't remember my old login details. I'm not a stranger to consumer rights either, just looking for some help in figuring out if I was being unrealistic from an unbiased PoV. Instead, it appears that the in-crowd just want to twist the knife and make little funnies at other's expense to keep themselves popular. Not much changes. Way to go.

Yes, it was rude of you to call other members schoolchildren. That's not an assumption - it's what you wrote.

I haven't made any "funny" remarks at your expense, though feel free to point them out and I will apologise.

You asked for advice and I have given it. In case I wasn't clear enough: under SOGA after 6 months subsequent to purchase the onus is on the buyer to prove that the item supplied is inherently faulty and, as the seller didn't request this, their offer of replacement doors would be viewed as a goodwill gesture. They have now indicated that if there are further problems you will be asked for this proof, by way of an independent report, before they are prepared to offer a remedy. If the report finds that the issue is caused by an inherent fault then the seller will be liable to refund you the cost of the report in addition to remedying the fault. You have these rights under SOGA for 6 years from the date of purchase and can be called upon as many times as are necessary in this period. It is not reasonable to expect a seller to admit liability in writing when they have no proof that they are at fault.

Overloading an ombudsman with a file of correspondence is unlikely to help your cause. They will have many cases and limited time, so a more concise summation of events would likely be more productive as otherwise the salient points will be missed in the morass.

LilElvis

maxilee wrote: »

Oh, and I haven't been rude to B&Q either. That's another assumption on your part.

I did say "I surmise", and given your tone it's not an unreasonable one to have made.

maxilee

Assuming again - I haven't said that YOU did, read again.

They made an appointment to come to my house to inspect. They didn't show up. They lied about showing up. Then they said 'Forget the inspection, we'll just replace those two doors'. Then continued through lengthy correspondence to dodge all questions.

Their conduct is not great, is it? Forget that it's B&Q. If any trader dealt with you like that, would you trust them in future dealings?

Another of your assumptions is that I've 'overloaded' the ombudsman. Their form asks for the correspondence. I've provided what they've asked for and nothing more.

Your manner is very abrasive.