Brand-new Wickes hob top shatters in weeks

Carrot007

jimmypick wrote: »

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?

Sorry no one is being polite to you! Not enough time to do that these days it seems ;-)

They are however just being matter of fact and not nasty.

From the above it sounds like the pan is defective or not one to use on such a hob where the edge is weak (as ceramic edges are).

And yes this was just a freak accident. My previous kitchen had a tiled floow. I dropped lot's on it and nothing happened. Then one day a frozen chicken breast was dropped and a chip occured. Such things happen and we can only blame ourselves.

I had to dig out and replace the tile myself, you seem to have been offered a good deal.

LABMAN

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Lets face it, you'll claim anything if it allows you to blame the consumer.

Let's face it, a great many of your posts on MSE tend to be critical of others who are trying to give advice. Remember you have given wrong advice on here (basic arithmetic fail) so wind your neck in.

Pollycat

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Lets face it, you'll claim anything if it allows you to blame the consumer.

Let's face nothing.
I don't claim anything that isn't the truth.
The OP's wife dropped a saucepan lid on a ceramic hob.
I've never done that.
Believe what you will.

Let's wait and see what Wickes' response is after the OP takes your advice and writes back to them 'quoting the law'.
Then we'll review the situation after the LBA has been received by Wickes.

Gavin83

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I can't see why you'd need some sort of independent report. Within the first six months after buying the product, any fault is presumed to have been there since the time of purchase unless the retailer proves otherwise. They've not even attempted this. Therefore either there is a fault, which is it the retailers job to fix, or the hob does this by design in which case it's not of satisfactory quality for normal cooking, and is also the retailers responsibility.

No one is disputing the law on this, what people are disputing is that it's a fault. The OP dropped something on it, it cracked, I really don't see how this is the manufacturers fault. It's also entirely likely the OP has downplayed what happened. Of course ultimately it'll be up to a court to decide but they won't just disregard the circumstances.

And no one is anti consumer here. When someone has a genuine case this forum backs them up but I, like many others here think it's primarily the OPs fault. No one has been rude on this topic and the advice has been sound.

The OP is free to pursue this through the court if they feel they have a case but if they lose, best case scenario they'll be down the court fees and will lose the offer from Wickes, so ultimately about £500 down. Up to them if they consider it worth the risk.

shaun_from_Africa

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Within the first six months after buying the product, any fault is presumed to have been there since the time of purchase unless the retailer proves otherwise.

That's correct as far as it goes but you've left part of it out and the bit you've forgotten to mention is the most relevant part.

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.
(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

(a) Was the hob shattered when supplied?
No.
(b) Was the shattered hob caused by something that was done to it after delivery?
Yes.

Greta_Sharbo

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The actual legislation in the consumer rights act states that goods must be of satisfactory quality. This is defined to include (among others) "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied" and "durability". See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/9/enacted and ignore the made-up rubbish from Greta Sharbo.
.

My post was specifically in relation to the OPs earlier post about cricket bats and tennis balls and how that relates to the law re 'fit for purpose'. Previous replies had already indicated that there needs to be an inherent fault.

I wasnt suggesting that a (not) fit for purpose claim was relevant.

jimmypick

Hi all,
Just by way of update, Wickes did agree to supply us with a free replacement after we wrote to their head office.
Thanks for the advice, in particular to ThumbRemote, who was one of the few on this thread to refer to what the law actually states.
Wickes were very apologetic and the new hob is in place.
I have to say I was quite surprised with some of the replies, but not to worry. The new hob is working beautifully

DoaM

To be fair, post #36 gave the full, correct clarification. Wickes weren't legally obliged to do this but have done so because a) it is good customer service, and b) it is cheaper than potentially having to defend a court claim.

jimmypick

yes i think page 2 beats page 1 for quality and helpfulness of replies!

Fosterdog

jimmypick wrote: »

yes i think page 2 beats page 1 for quality and helpfulness of replies!

In other words on page 2 somebody told you what you wanted to hear. There is a huge difference between that and quality and helpfulness. You have had plenty of quality and correct replies, you just didn't like them. You are now taking the goodwill and generosity of the company as proof you and one other person were correct. When it is just that, goodwill, not legal entitlement, all of the other posters were still the ones who were factually correct.