Warranty settlement 'offer' - Fair?

dogfonos

Would appreciate views/opinions an unexpected response I received when I claimed for a faulty product under warranty.

The food processor I purchased from an ALDI store in March 2015 came with a three year warranty - not disputed. The blender/liquidizer jug developed a crack, through no fault of the user, which grew enough to leak - also not disputed - so in November 2016 I claimed for a repair or replacement under the warranty.

After some communication with the company, I received a letter with a cheque for 69% of the original price paid. Hmm. The letter justified the reduced amount by saying that I had had 21 months use from the appliance and it has depreciated since purchase.

I had expected a full refund although I can see the logic in their argument.

I checked the warranty section of the user manual that came with the appliance and it states "Costs: Free repair/exchange or refund. No transport costs." There is no mention of an 'adjusted' refund amount. Shouldn't this refund reduction have been made clear when the contract between seller and purchaser was initially made (i.e. at the point of sale)? Legally, can warranty conditions be applied/imposed (without mutual consent) after the contract was made?

Interested to hear your views.

JJ_Egan

You would not have been entitled to a full refund under the Sale of Goods Act .

Who was the actual warranty with ?? Aldi or the manufacturer .

69% good deal in my view .

ThumbRemote

If the warranty conditions offer a repair, exchange or refund, I'd expect one of those. It does not state a partial refund.

Talk of what you would have been entitled to under the Sale of Goods Act is irrelevant; your claim is under the warranty, not that.

wealdroam

dogfonos wrote: »

Would appreciate views/opinions an unexpected response I received when I claimed for a faulty product under warranty.

The food processor I purchased from an ALDI store in March 2015 came with a three year warranty - not disputed. The blender/liquidizer jug developed a crack, through no fault of the user, which grew enough to leak - also not disputed - so in November 2016 I claimed for a repair or replacement under the warranty.

After some communication with the company, I received a letter with a cheque for 69% of the original price paid. Hmm. The letter justified the reduced amount by saying that I had had 21 months use from the appliance and it has depreciated since purchase.

I had expected a full refund although I can see the logic in their argument.

I checked the warranty section of the user manual that came with the appliance and it states "Costs: Free repair/exchange or refund. No transport costs." There is no mention of an 'adjusted' refund amount. Shouldn't this refund reduction have been made clear when the contract between seller and purchaser was initially made (i.e. at the point of sale)? Legally, can warranty conditions be applied/imposed (without mutual consent) after the contract was made?

Interested to hear your views.

Surely that line "Costs: Free repair/exchange or refund." just indicates that the would be no cost to you if they repair or replace the thing, neither will they charge you if they provide a refund.

Could that partial refund perhaps be interpreted as a full refund of the blender/liquidiser, where the blender/liquidiser costs a proportion, say 69%, of the whole food processor?

dogfonos

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Who was the actual warranty with ?? Aldi or the manufacturer

Unclear. Both the manufacturers name (Crofton) and ALDI's name appear on the user manual although, out of the two, only Crofton's name appears on the Warranty pages. The address to return the warranty card to is a different company altogether, JTM Contracts UK Ltd, although another company, Pacifica Appliance Services, appear to have taken over responsibility for this warranty because I've been dealing only with Pacifica.

When I last claimed under a three warranty for an ALDI product that didn't stay the course (product failed at about two years, If I remember correctly), I received a full refund - that was about two years ago.

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote wrote: »

If the warranty conditions offer a repair, exchange or refund, I'd expect one of those. It does not state a partial refund.

Talk of what you would have been entitled to under the Sale of Goods Act is irrelevant; your claim is under the warranty, not that.

It doesn't state full refund either.

dogfonos

wealdroam wrote: »

Could that partial refund perhaps be interpreted as a full refund of the blender/liquidiser, where the blender/liquidiser costs a proportion, say 69%, of the whole food processor?

Good point. I didn't go into too much detail in my initial posts but I had to jump a few hoops before I received this partial refund. One of the things I was asked to do by the company handling the warranty was to cut the electrical cable from the appliance motor as close to the appliance motor casing as possible than send them a photo to prove I had done this. So there's no way the appliance can be used for anything now.

bris

They are conforming to the law and that states a partial refund is acceptable after 6 months of use. They also have the right to choose.

dogfonos

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It doesn't state full refund either.

Thing is, who decides what percentage to refund based on length of ownership? Nothing stated in the warranty - would this info be included in the Sale of Goods Act? If not, I could see this being abused by warranty companies although that's not the case here because...

...if my maths is correct, the warranty company in this instance have decided that my ALDI food processor should have a service life of about twelve years (assuming an inversely proportional relationship between refunded amount and length of ownership). Seemed pretty generous until I realised that my previous food processor worked flawlessly for well over twenty years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy with the 69% refund offered. Just hadn't come across this partial refund thing before and wondered if anyone here had.

dogfonos

bris wrote: »

They are conforming to the law and that states a partial refund is acceptable after 6 months of use. They also have the right to choose.

Thanks for that. I will factor that in when I next make a purchasing decision on an item that comes with an extended (i.e. >one year) warranty.

wealdroam

dogfonos wrote: »

Thing is, who decides what percentage to refund based on length of ownership? Nothing stated in the warranty - would this info be included in the Sale of Goods Act? If not, I could see this being abused by warranty companies...

There is nothing in the Sale of Goods Act or The Consumer Rights Act which states how a partial refund should be calculated.

Section 24 of The Consumer Rights Act says:

24 Right to price reduction or final right to reject

(8) If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered...

The Sale of Goods Act says something very similar.

I am not sure that either SoGA or CRA have any relevance to your situation though, as a warranty/guarantee is in addition to your statutory rights.