Tumble dryer refund?

jonnyw62

Does anyone know the law when it comes to trying to get a refund for a tumble dryer bought from Tesco in October? It is one of the makes that could be a fire hazard. Tesco are washing their hands of it - Hotpoint don't have a clue when they can get an engineer out with a part. It was purchased online using mostly club card points - so can't get a refund from bank for using a credit card. This is what Tesco have said below. Basically I would like to know if we are entitled to a refund? Many thanks

Thank you for your reply and for the order number.

After looking into this further I am afraid we are unable to send out a brand new tumble dryer as Hotpoint are in the middle of contacting all customers affected about this so that an engineer can be sent out to fix this issue.

I agree the level of wait is unacceptable however this is due to the amount of customers that have been affected by this issue.

If you wanted you could call Hotpoint directly and see if there is anything else they can do for you. There contact number is 03448 224 224 and lines are open Monday to Friday 8.00am – 6.30pm, Saturday 8.30am – 5.30pm and Sunday and Bank Holidays 9.30am – 3.30pm.

I know this wasnt the answer you were looking for but I do hope this information helps.

bris

You are entitled to a remedy, that remedy is their choice not yours as it's passed the 30 days. You are not entitled to a refund.

LongTallKatie

Look at the Sales of Good Act 1979, the dryer is not fit for purpose as it is a fire hazard, therefore since you bought from Tesco they have to provide a remedy for it, be a repair, replacement or refund. They are simply fobbing you off by telling you they can't do anything and Hotpoint are dealing with it.


Send them a LBA, (Letter Before Action) send it recorded delivery, and see what comes back. If they still won't budge, start a claims in the Small Claims Court, you will easily win the case!

System

It is NOT a fire hazard but only a POSSIBLE fire hazard.

AJXX

LongTallKatie wrote: »

Look at the Sales of Good Act 1979, the dryer is not fit for purpose as it is a fire hazard, therefore since you bought from Tesco they have to provide a remedy for it, be a repair, replacement or refund. They are simply fobbing you off by telling you they can't do anything and Hotpoint are dealing with it.


Send them a LBA, (Letter Before Action) send it recorded delivery, and see what comes back. If they still won't budge, start a claims in the Small Claims Court, you will easily win the case!

Be careful with this one - there is no precedent for this. It has been debated a few times on here but there is no definitive answer as to if these units would be considered "faulty" or "not fit for purpose" under SOGA in the eyes of a court.

Remember in the grand scheme of things only less than 1% of units sold have actually caused any fires/damage (from the latest figures we had a few days ago) and just because the machine has been selected for modification does not necessarily make it an instant fire risk.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't proceed with SOGA but I'd certainly take "easily win the case" with a pinch of salt.

wealdroam

LongTallKatie wrote: »

...start a claims in the Small Claims Court, you will easily win the case!

My crystal ball says different.

Whirlpool are playing safe by modifying machines whether the individual machine poses a fire risk or not.

As said above, just because a machine is due to be modified, does not instantly turn it into a fire risk.

LongTallKatie

AJXX wrote: »

Be careful with this one - there is no precedent for this. It has been debated a few times on here but there is no definitive answer as to if these units would be considered "faulty" or "not fit for purpose" under SOGA in the eyes of a court.

Remember in the grand scheme of things only less than 1% of units sold have actually caused any fires/damage (from the latest figures we had a few days ago) and just because the machine has been selected for modification does not necessarily make it an instant fire risk.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't proceed with SOGA but I'd certainly take "easily win the case" with a pinch of salt.

Did you see the guy on TV on This Morning on Monday, he pursued Curry's under SOGA, and they eventually backed down and replaced his dryer or was it a refund he got. Either way he took a stand in the store and got what he wanted.

LongTallKatie

wealdroam wrote: »

My crystal ball says different.

Whirlpool are playing safe by modifying machines whether the individual machine poses a fire risk or not.

As said above, just because a machine is due to be modified, does not instantly turn it into a fire risk.

Unless your modified dryer starts to smell of burning within 2 days of using it! I'll let you read my other post on the Hotpoint Tumble Dryer thread.

LongTallKatie

!!!!!! wrote: »

It is NOT a fire hazard but only a POSSIBLE fire hazard.

I would say mine was more of a fire risk after the modification! Shared my story on the Hotpoint Tumble Dryer thread.

unholyangel

LongTallKatie wrote: »

Unless your modified dryer starts to smell of burning within 2 days of using it! I'll let you read my other post on the Hotpoint Tumble Dryer thread.

The info you posted over there was equally erroneous.

AJXX

LongTallKatie wrote: »

Did you see the guy on TV on This Morning on Monday, he pursued Curry's under SOGA, and they eventually backed down and replaced his dryer or was it a refund he got. Either way he took a stand in the store and got what he wanted.

What he did was spend 2 or 3 days on the phone, literally constantly and then (by his own admission) sat protesting in the middle of the shop for hours.

What I'm talking about is an actual court decided outcome to this, which is very different than Currys giving up simply because it's easier for them to say "here is a refund, bye" then spend an enormous amount of time dealing with this man whom is sat protesting in their shop loosing them customers and clogging up their customer services phone lines.

Again not saying your wrong, not saying that people shouldn't follow through with the SOGA process with their retailer if they feel its necessary - what I'm saying is it may not be an open and shut case and certainly may not be "easily won" if actually taken to court.