Hotpoint Farce - Warning, quite long

CrazyRed

Leo2020 wrote: »

From reading the original post, the OP wants betterment. They have had use of a machine for 10 years yet they want a full refund of the purchase price. I doubt they will get this from Hotpoint, why should the refund the whole cost of the original purchase? The OP didn't even buy it from them. The have offered £175 for a 10 year old dryer - thats a decent offer bearing in mind that I doubt a working 10 year old dryer wouldn't be worth that.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here - perhaps I wasn't totally clear.

No, they haven't offered £175 for a ten year old dryer. They've offered me £175 for a less-than-one-month old REPLACEMENT for my ten year old dryer.

To be clear : I am NOT after "betterment". All I am after is fair recompense for TWO machines of mine - both of them well under a month old each - that Hotpoint have in their possession. One of which I paid £199 for (which, in fairness, they have offered the refund of immediately) and the other was my replacement dryer, delivered November and subsequently exchanged in December for a second faulty machine. It is the amount of the second machine's "worth" that I am having the squabble with Hotpoint over. My argument is that it was a brand new machine, under one month old, and therefore I should be able to claim the cost as if it were new. Instead, Hotpoint essentially want me to accept that a brand-new machine has "depreciated" by £75 in a month.

CrazyRed

unholyangel wrote: »

For anyone wanting the shortened version:

Basically OP had extended warranty with D&G on machine purchased 2005. This was replaced with a like for like model in november last year which was subject to the recall.

Hotpoint replaced it. Also faulty, so OP paid £199 for a better model. Which was also faulty -three times OP has purchased replacement from Very due to repeated problems with hotpoint. Hotpoint asked for proof of value of the machine they owe OP for (insurance replacement) but OP has no receipt for it as it was an insurance replacement so provided what he could about cost of the original 2005 machine.

Hotpoint have offered to refund £199 upgrade fee paid to hotpoint and also £175 for the insurance replacement. OP doesn't feel this is adequate as insurance replacement has a RRP of £299 and the original machine from 2005 was around £250 he thinks.

My bold, just to clarify. In all, FIVE machines have been sent out to my home since November 2015.

AJXX

CrazyRed wrote: »

There seems to be some misunderstanding here - perhaps I wasn't totally clear.

All I am after is fair recompense for TWO machines of mine - both of them well under a month old each - that Hotpoint have in their possession. One of which I paid £199 for (which, in fairness, they have offered the refund of immediately) and the other was my replacement dryer, delivered November and subsequently exchanged in December for a second faulty machine. It is the amount of the second machine's "worth" that I am having the squabble with Hotpoint over. My argument is that it was a brand new machine, under one month old, and therefore I should be able to claim the cost as if it were new. Instead, Hotpoint essentially want me to accept that a brand-new machine has "depreciated" by £75 in a month.

Just to be clear, did you pay anything towards the 2nd machine? If not I'm not sure I understand the logic here, if you didn't pay anything towards the 2nd machine what makes you think you're entitle to the value of it?

CrazyRed

AJXX wrote: »

Just to be clear, did you pay anything towards the 2nd machine? If not I'm not sure I understand the logic here, if you didn't pay anything towards the 2nd machine what makes you think you're entitle to the value of it?

Yes, I paid a £100 "excess" on the machine when the insurance company replaced it.

I'm not sure I understand fully, to be honest. I had, in my home until Friday a Hotpoint tumble dryer - for the purposes of this reply, it's irrelevant whether it was the upgraded machine or the new replacement - and, had there been a successful replacement by Hotpoint, with a working machine, I would still have one Hotpoint tumble dryer. Indeed, this is what the representative was trying to do on Monday by offering me the £299 RRP model and my "upgrade fee" back.

However, Hotpoint now have ALL my Hotpoint tumble dryers - I have none. The insurance replacement was taken back and my upgraded one was faulty three times, therefore it was rejected. Accordingly, I have net zero Hotpoint tumble dryers and a £199 hole in my credit card. I wish to be put back into the position I would have been before all this cr*p started - I just don't want a Hotpoint tumble dryer any more because I have lost faith in the brand.

Does that make a little more sense?

CrazyRed

OR - putting it another way - the upgrade fee I paid was the difference in retail price between the machine I had, which was new, and the one I desired. All in all, the 'value' of the new tumble dryer was £420, which my payment of £199 plus the removal of my old machine, made up.

Hotpoint seem to think that I can "pay" £420 for a machine, but receive a refund of £374, having had less than a month's use out of all the machines combined......

AJXX

CrazyRed wrote: »

Yes, I paid a £100 "excess" on the machine when the insurance company replaced it.

Sorry to de-rail this, but just so I understand this;

You have an insurance policy which you've been paying for 10 years, when your machine was deemed unrepairable they charged you £100 excess?

How much is this "insurance" costing you per month and how much was the machine originally?

Personally I think you should be taking aim at your insurance company as it sounds like you've had your trousers pulled down for the last 10 years.

CrazyRed wrote: »

OR - putting it another way - the upgrade fee I paid was the difference in retail price between the machine I had, which was new, and the one I desired. All in all, the 'value' of the new tumble dryer was £420, which my payment of £199 plus the removal of my old machine, made up.

Hotpoint seem to think that I can "pay" £420 for a machine, but receive a refund of £374, having had less than a month's use out of all the machines combined......

I think I'm going to drop out of this one as my head is hurting.

It sounds to me like you're basing your expected refund amount on the overall value of the machines combined rather than what you actually paid - which isn't really how things work.

I agree you're entitle to a full refund of your actual costs, which are £199. I really don't understand how you're calculating figures higher than this based on machines you no longer have possession of.

unholyangel

He's basing the refund on the £199 he paid to hotpoint (for the newest machine - which was to upgrade the model from the one they previously had as a replacement) plus the machine his insurance gave him but was subject to the recall (so was replaced by hotpoint - but with a faulty unit).

Basically the value of the insurance replacement + the £199 is what he paid for his newest machine (which was also faulty). The issue is trying to prove the value of the insurance replacement given OP didn't buy it.

CrazyRed

You've hit the nail on the head there, unholyangel. Thankyou for having the ability to cut through my waffle and summarise the issue in one sentence. That is exactly what I was trying to convey.

unholyangel

CrazyRed wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head there, unholyangel. Thankyou for having the ability to cut through my waffle and summarise the issue in one sentence. That is exactly what I was trying to convey.

I'm fluent in waffle, I tend to speak it myself

Leo2020

unholyangel wrote: »

He's basing the refund on the £199 he paid to hotpoint (for the newest machine - which was to upgrade the model from the one they previously had as a replacement) plus the machine his insurance gave him but was subject to the recall (so was replaced by hotpoint - but with a faulty unit).

Basically the value of the insurance replacement + the £199 is what he paid for his newest machine (which was also faulty). The issue is trying to prove the value of the insurance replacement given OP didn't buy it.

The fact the OP didn't buy it makes it tricky. Really as far as I can tell they are not entitled to anything money wise for the machine they are only entitled to another replacement. I'm basing his on his insurance policy. He didn't get cash he got a replacement via D&G. Therefore I think he should be entitled to the same from Hotpoint of course that's not what the OP wants.