Fridge/Freezer has failed

homeworkgirl

My 15mth old fridge/freezer has broken down leaving me with £80 worth of spoiled food. I bought it online from AO with debit card April 2016 so the 1year guarantee has run out. I was told by Consumer Helpline I am covered under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for repair or replacement of the appliance plus the cost of the ruined food? However, AO are saying I can only claim if I can prove an inherent fault on the appliance and that they are not responsible in any event for consequential loss, i.e. the food. They say I have to pay for engineer callout to assess whether inherent fault or not. What happens if this is a fault that has just developed?
Am I liable to pay for the callout and repair ..it seems so unfair if appliance is only 15mths old?

I have to put ca in shortly and would be very grateful for your advice.

JJ_Egan

AO are correct .
Consumer helpline did not give you enough information re consumer laws .
After 6 months the onus is on you to prove an inherent fault .If proven then you claim back engineers cost .
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4922954

homeworkgirl

So are you saying that AO are correct about me having to pay if the fault in the appliance has just arisen? or that they are not responsible for consequential loss? I have read the link you gave me but unable to find the answers to this.

DoaM

AO are not liable for consequential loss.

After 6 months from purchase/delivery (whichever is later) the burden of proof (to show that the fault occurred due to an inherent issue with the item rather than user misuse) switches to the consumer. The consumer can engage an engineer to assess the item and generate a report - if this report shows that (on the balance of probabilities) the item failed due to an inherent fault (e.g. poor quality soldering) then the seller is liable to provide a remedy (repair, replace, refund - can be partial to account for usage) and is also liable for the reasonable cost of the report - say £60 ish.

AO are requiring you to get a report showing an inherent fault - as is their legal right to do so.

comeandgo

Do you have content household insurance? Your freezer contents may be covered under that.

RoonilWazlib_2

There may have been an inherent fault that has only recently became evident - if its a fault as a result of normal wear and tear, AO are not responsible. The onus is on you to prove that it is an inherent fault. If this has a cost and you are right, you can ask for this cost back.


If it can be shown that AO are liable they you are entitled to a free repair or replacement (their choice), which must be provided within a reasonable timescale.


You can make a claim for consequential loss but whether they accept it is another matter. It should be reasonable and be able to be justified and as best as possible you have mitigated any losses.

homeworkgirl

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. As I'm having a nightmare trying to get an engineer appointment with Hotpoint, because I've been cut off five times already and still waiting for a call back, plus the fact its going to cost me £120 for the privilege and I'm stuck for God knows how long without even the fridge, one wonders if it's worth all the hassle and stress.

On the other hand, why should they get away with it? Surely a Fridge/freezer should be expected to last a good few years?

no1catman

Your said "Hotpoint"!! They are company in the centre of the Grenfell Tower fire - though granted the Hotpoint fridge/freezer concerned was an old one - sold between 2006 & 2009, it means the company is being overwhelmed with queries from concerned customers (I was one).

One thing that can cause problems, is if a door of the appliance is not closed firmly enough - it could cause the motor to run continuously and fail as a result. Where its sited can affect it e.g. temperatures in garages would be colder in winter and warmer in summer, than a kitchen - hence some models will be rated for garage use.

Is their an independent domestic appliance engineer in your area, who could check it out - cheaper, and no Hotpoint bias!

Inner_Zone

no1catman wrote: »

Your said "Hotpoint"!! They are company in the centre of the Grenfell Tower fire - though granted the Hotpoint fridge/freezer concerned was an old one - sold between 2006 & 2009, it means the company is being overwhelmed with queries from concerned customers (I was one).

And the tumble dryer issue so no doubt they have stretched resource's. Ex Indest tumble dryer owner.

unholyangel

No they can't disclaim liability for consequential loss - that phrase in itself is legal jargon (which isn't allowed in consumer contracts)

Taken from CMAs guidance on unfair contract terms:

5.6.6 Consequential loss exclusions. Businesses often wish to protect themselves
from liability to pay damages for remote ‘knock-on’ consequences of
breaches of contract on their part. To achieve this they commonly use
terms that exclude liability for ‘consequential’ losses. The CMA considers
that the use of this technical term (or the similar term ‘indirect losses’ where
the same effect is produced) is potentially unfair in two separate ways.

5.6.7 First, the special legal meaning of ‘consequential loss’ is unknown to most
people and very different from its ordinary meaning. Its use in standard contracts can lead to consumers thinking – and being told – that they have
no claim for any loss which is a consequence of a trader’s breach of
contract. In the absence of legal advice, this misunderstanding may
effectively deprive them of the chance to claim any compensation at all.

5.6.8 Secondly, an exclusion of consequential loss, even if given its proper legal
meaning, has the potential to stop the consumer from seeking redress in
certain circumstances when it ought to be available. That is because it is
liable to be understood, as a matter of law, as involving a disclaimer of
liability for all losses except those which anyone could see would flow
directly and naturally from the trader’s breach. It can be argued that it
therefore excludes liability for less obvious risks, even if the consumer
actually told the trader about them and asked him or her to take care to
avoid them.

Consequential loss disclaimers attract high scrutiny in consumer contracts because its purpose is to disclaim liability for damage/losses which was not foreseeable/couldnt have been in contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered. Except thats the ordinary position of the law anyway - that you can only claim losses that were foreseeable. So inclusion of such a disclaimer is highly likely to mislead consumers - both into thinking they can't claim for special losses (losses that wouldn't be apparent in general but that the consumer made known to the retailer - such as requiring delivery of materials by a certain date as they have installers/workmen booked for x date) and also wrongly classing losses as consequential when in fact they're direct.

The last is most relevant to OP. Who here wouldn't expect damages of that type (spoiled food) if a fridge/freezer broke? If you would expect it/its an obvious possibility from such a breach of contract, then the damage/loss isn't consequential/indirect, its a direct loss and therefore, they are liable.


As for the rest, yes they can require you get a report once you're passed the 6 month mark. You need to show they're in breach of contract before they'll be liable for your losses.

DoaM

unholyangel wrote: »

No they can't disclaim liability for consequential loss

I don't think AO said that at the time of purchase ... they said that when OP called to complain about the fault. At that time AO are perfectly correct - they are not liable for the loss of the foodstuff in the fridge/freezer unless the contract T&Cs had said otherwise.

Why else would home contents insurance offer an option to cover the contents of a fridge/freezer in the event of a failure? There'd be no need if sellers were automatically liable.