Brand-new Wickes hob top shatters in weeks

jimmypick

OK, I can see I'm getting nowhere here.

For the record, in response to the last post, she slid the pan from the front to the back hob, the lid slipped off and hit the very edge of the ceramic top, which is raised up by approx 2mm over the kitchen worktop. It obviously hit a vulnerable point. Surely we've got a reasonable argument for saying we have been sold something which is defective?

You say we damaged it by ourselves. What if I bought a brand-new cricket bat which split in half when hitting a tennis ball? You surely have a right as a consumer to expect a product to have a certain robustness?

marliepanda

jimmypick wrote: »

OK, I can see I'm getting nowhere here.

For the record, in response to the last post, she slid the pan from the front to the back hob, the lid slipped off and hit the very edge of the ceramic top, which is raised up by approx 2mm over the kitchen worktop. It obviously hit a vulnerable point. Surely we've got a reasonable argument for saying we have been sold something which is defective?

You say we damaged it by ourselves. What if I bought a brand-new cricket bat which split in half when hitting a tennis ball? You surely have a right as a consumer to expect a product to have a certain robustness?

Cricket bats are designed to hit balls.

Hobs are designed to get hot and cook food, not for you to drop things on them, pans, pan lids, crockery, nothing.

Greta_Sharbo

jimmypick wrote: »

You say we damaged it by ourselves. What if I bought a brand-new cricket bat which split in half when hitting a tennis ball? You surely have a right as a consumer to expect a product to have a certain robustness?

Fit for purpose made known is the full description of that term.

Had you bought a cricket bat and explicitly stated your intention was to hit tennis balls and the seller said that would be ok, you might have grounds for recourse.

Similarly if you had told them you intended to drop saucepan lids .... silly examples but you get the picture.

Products need to be fit for the purpose they are supplied for plus any specific purpose you made known

Sorry, this one isn't going in your favour.

Warwick_Hunt

jimmypick wrote: »

OK, I can see I'm getting nowhere here.

For the record, in response to the last post, she slid the pan from the front to the back hob, the lid slipped off and hit the very edge of the ceramic top, which is raised up by approx 2mm over the kitchen worktop. It obviously hit a vulnerable point. Surely we've got a reasonable argument for saying we have been sold something which is defective?

You say we damaged it by ourselves. What if I bought a brand-new cricket bat which split in half when hitting a tennis ball? You surely have a right as a consumer to expect a product to have a certain robustness?

Which it was.

jimmypick

A ceramic hob shouldn't break when a pan lid drops from 3.5 inches. If it does, then (in my unqualified opinion), it's defective. It should be more robust than that, especially at £500.

Putting aside the sarcasm and assumptions I'm lying, isn't this a fair point?

Can anyone with any knowledge of consumer law help?

jimmypick

Greta_Sharbo wrote: »

Fit for purpose made known is the full description of that term.

Had you bought a cricket bat and explicitly stated your intention was to hit tennis balls and the seller said that would be ok, you might have grounds for recourse.

Similarly if you had told them you intended to drop saucepan lids .... silly examples but you get the picture.

Products need to be fit for the purpose they are supplied for plus any specific purpose you made known

Sorry, this one isn't going in your favour.

OK, thanks for this. This is quite helpful.

Of course, my intention wasn't to drop saucepan lids, but I would have thought that would come under some sort of expected wear and tear. Lids sit on pans and sometimes at an angle to allow steam to escape. They must come off onto the hop quite often. I'm amazed that it was able to crack the glass top.

neilmcl

jimmypick wrote: »

A ceramic hob shouldn't break when a pan lid drops from 3.5 inches. If it does, then (in my unqualified opinion), it's defective. It should be more robust than that, especially at £500.

Then get yourself a "qualified" opinion and prove it. You freely admit and recognise that the point where the lid hit, ie the edge of the hob, is where it's likely to the most vulnerable to breaks and chips so you can't really be surprised that this is exactly what has happened.

neilmcl

jimmypick wrote: »

OK, thanks for this. This is quite helpful.

Of course, my intention wasn't to drop saucepan lids, but I would have thought that would come under some sort of expected wear and tear. Lids sit on pans and sometimes at an angle to allow steam to escape. They must come off onto the hop quite often. I'm amazed that it was able to crack the glass top.

Again, it didn't crack the top, it caught and cracked the edge which in turn spread to the rest of the hob.

GDB2222

jimmypick wrote: »

A ceramic hob shouldn't break when a pan lid drops from 3.5 inches. If it does, then (in my unqualified opinion), it's defective. It should be more robust than that, especially at £500.

Putting aside the sarcasm and assumptions I'm lying, isn't this a fair point?

Can anyone with any knowledge of consumer law help?

You can issue court proceedings. You’ve exhausted he complaint route.

The problem is proving your case in court, which will require an expert to look at the hob and assess the damage. This all starts to get rather expensive, and you cannot be sure that you have a case until you see the report.

If you issue proceedings the shop may not wish to defend, but you cannot rely on it.

jimmypick

GDB2222 wrote: »

You can issue court proceedings. You’ve exhausted he complaint route.

The problem is proving your case in court, which will require an expert to look at the hob and assess the damage. This all starts to get rather expensive, and you cannot be sure that you have a case until you see the report.

If you issue proceedings the shop may not wish to defend, but you cannot rely on it.

Thanks for this. If it gets that far, would it be through the small claims and if I were to lose would I be at any risks for costs liability?

I don't think the complaint route is exhausted yet. We've only spoken to the store, not Wickes centrally.

I think my problem (and on this thread too) may be the use of the word "shattering" which conjures an image of broken glass everywhere, which implies we were extremely careless. The damage is very small but the hob is impaired.