MSE News: Ombudsman awards refund to owner of faulty Hotpoint dryer

Legacy_user

A faulty Hotpoint tumble dryer owner refused a refund by his credit card firm Nationwide has had the decision overturned...

Read the full story:
'Ombudsman awards refund to owner of faulty Hotpoint dryer after credit card company refuses to cough up'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

michaels

Hmm - I would have thought 6 years would be the expected economic life (or more than) of a tumble dryer so the sale of goods act whilst applying would have suggested a zero value for the dryer after that period - after all had the dryer broken down after 6 years neither the retailer (nor by extension the credit card company) would have had any liability would they?

VT82

How is a six year old tumble dryer, that may or may not be faulty, the problem of the credit card provider with which it was bought said six years ago? Beyond ridiculous how banks (or, indeed, Nationwide) are seen as cash cow as last resort. Section 75 protection is becoming a joke.

System

They have an inherent fault (from day 0) so I would expect the retailer to correct this.
S75 simply mirrors that liability with the credit provider.

VT82 wrote: »

How is a six year old tumble dryer, that may or may not be faulty, the problem of the credit card provider with which it was bought said six years ago? Beyond ridiculous how banks (or, indeed, Nationwide) are seen as cash cow as last resort. Section 75 protection is becoming a joke.

eddddy

VT82 wrote: »

How is a six year old tumble dryer, that may or may not be faulty, the problem of the credit card provider with which it was bought said six years ago? Beyond ridiculous how banks (or, indeed, Nationwide) are seen as cash cow as last resort. Section 75 protection is becoming a joke.

Section 75 provides cover for breach of contract.

Is your argument that the consumer should not have got a refund from anyone - because there was no breach of contract?

Or are you saying that the consumer should have got a refund because of a breach of contract - but it should have come from the retailer, not the CC provider?


It sounds like you're argument is more about whether a breach of contract actually occurred, more than about Section 75.