Washing machine caught fire

trevyb

spadoosh wrote: »

Its all perfectly legal. Just like i can sell you a 50p for £10,000 if you where agreeable.

any fees involved should be waived if the fault is found to be a manufacturing fault. Considering there is no maintenance on a washing machine, and unless you beat your washing machine up on a fairly regularly basis more or less all faults will be manufacturing faults. These are your statutory rights.

You wouldnt be entitled to a replacement exactly no. After you paid for your engineers fee and they found it to be a manufacturing fault you would have full protection of consumer rights. Thus replacement, repair or refund at no additional expense to you.

So if in 0-6 years time the motor burns out on your washing machine. And you dont have a warranty, youd have to pay for the machine to be inspected. If that fault is foundt o be mnufacturing, you can normally work this out yourself, ie have i done anything that would likely cause damage to the normal fuction? Or have i done anything outside the manufacturers recommendations (washing pots aand plates in there) that means its probably my fault?If you answer no to those, youve probably got a manufacturing fault. So full statutory protection, the fees involved will be refunded/waived and youll be entitled to a working machine. Most warranties exclude things that youve caused (ie the above scenarios) so would be probably no use.

Now if your washing machine breaks and they arent caused by you or your neglignece or considered a manufacturing fault you will be able to use the warranty. What this fault could be, that wasnt caused by you or a manufacturing fault, is beyond me. And this is what youre paying for. Ill let you think of any of the faults that could develop on a washing machine that isnt caused by you or a manufacturing fault because i cant think of any.

Push comes to shove and you do need to get a part and have it fitted (incredibly unlikley during warranty periods, maybe in 6-10 years) getting someone to buy and fit the part will probably be no more expensive than the warranties.


Its usually worth taking the risk.

Ok, my understanding is that this extended warranty is basically covering just the engineers fee then? My consumer rights cover the repairs / replacements.

If it breaks again within the next 2.6 years then I'll have saved money, whereas if it doesn't I'll be out of pocket.

Kind Regards - Trev

spadoosh

trevyb wrote: »

Ok, my understanding is that this extended warranty is basically covering just the engineers fee then? My consumer rights cover the repairs / replacements.

If it breaks again within the next 2.6 years then I'll have saved money, whereas if it doesn't I'll be out of pocket.

Kind Regards - Trev

If spending £4 a month on a product that you probably dont need is saving money then yes.

It appears theres 3 types of fault that can happen with this washing machine. The first being user. So you do something that breaks the machine. Not covered by warranty, not much help in statutory rights.

The second is manufacturing fault. Covered by warranty, covered by statutory rights. They differ slightly in that the warranty option means you dont pay for a engineers fee where as statutory rights you would. Once it was found that it was a manufacturing fault you would be entitled to that fee being waived/refunded. And the product being repaired, replaced or refunded (minus proportionate usage). This is what you claimed under with the first faulty washing machine, incidentally, without the need for a warranty in place.

The third option is what the warranty is perfect for. These are faults that are neither caused by you or manufacturing faults. You wouldnt have to pay an engineers fee for this (if you have the warranty). I cant think of any faults that could happen in the first 3 years of a washing machines life that isnt covered by the previous two options though. If you get one of these faults, whatever they may be, then yes youll have saved some money with the warranty. If these faults cant really happen then youre not saving money.


Lets look at what is a fairly typical fault in washing machines. The belt snaps. Under old rules you wouldnt have much protection, it would be deemed a maintenance issue and in those situations a warranty would be handy. Now you buy a washing machine and theyre not something that is supposed to be 'maintained'. Ie that means the belt is designed to last the life of the product. Legally for white goods you need to be looking at the 6 year mark although on average washing machines will last 11 years. So youve got the warranty i dont. The belt breaks after 2.9 years (assume you went with the 3 year warranty and its cost you £144). You claim through the warranty and get the belt replaced. Good result.

I dont have a warranty. I claim through my statutory rights. Ive got a faulty washing machine that isnt working as is expected. I complain to curry's. Theyll send someone round for £129 to tell me that the belt has snapped. This, to me, is a manufacturing fault. The machine cant be maintained better, theres no suggestion of it needing replacing or assessing etc. And the product, with no recommendations of changing or maintaining the belt, has lasted half the time you could reasonable expect. Under my statutory rights im entitled to a refund, replacement or repair. The refund option could be a bit iffy because they can pro rate the refunded amount to take in to account usage. The other two will leave you with a working washing machine. As soon as the engineer person said the belt had snapped i spoke to currys and they refunded my expenses. SO the result is i paid an engineers fee, got it refunded and then got a working wash machine. Good result (even better when you consider im £144 up on you, of which the money will go towards buying a replacement machine.)

trevyb

spadoosh wrote: »

If spending £4 a month on a product that you probably dont need is saving money then yes.

It appears theres 3 types of fault that can happen with this washing machine. The first being user. So you do something that breaks the machine. Not covered by warranty, not much help in statutory rights.

The second is manufacturing fault. Covered by warranty, covered by statutory rights. They differ slightly in that the warranty option means you dont pay for a engineers fee where as statutory rights you would. Once it was found that it was a manufacturing fault you would be entitled to that fee being waived/refunded. And the product being repaired, replaced or refunded (minus proportionate usage). This is what you claimed under with the first faulty washing machine, incidentally, without the need for a warranty in place.

The third option is what the warranty is perfect for. These are faults that are neither caused by you or manufacturing faults. You wouldnt have to pay an engineers fee for this (if you have the warranty). I cant think of any faults that could happen in the first 3 years of a washing machines life that isnt covered by the previous two options though. If you get one of these faults, whatever they may be, then yes youll have saved some money with the warranty. If these faults cant really happen then youre not saving money.


Lets look at what is a fairly typical fault in washing machines. The belt snaps. Under old rules you wouldnt have much protection, it would be deemed a maintenance issue and in those situations a warranty would be handy. Now you buy a washing machine and theyre not something that is supposed to be 'maintained'. Ie that means the belt is designed to last the life of the product. Legally for white goods you need to be looking at the 6 year mark although on average washing machines will last 11 years. So youve got the warranty i dont. The belt breaks after 2.9 years (assume you went with the 3 year warranty and its cost you £144). You claim through the warranty and get the belt replaced. Good result.

I dont have a warranty. I claim through my statutory rights. Ive got a faulty washing machine that isnt working as is expected. I complain to curry's. Theyll send someone round for £129 to tell me that the belt has snapped. This, to me, is a manufacturing fault. The machine cant be maintained better, theres no suggestion of it needing replacing or assessing etc. And the product, with no recommendations of changing or maintaining the belt, has lasted half the time you could reasonable expect. Under my statutory rights im entitled to a refund, replacement or repair. The refund option could be a bit iffy because they can pro rate the refunded amount to take in to account usage. The other two will leave you with a working washing machine. As soon as the engineer person said the belt had snapped i spoke to currys and they refunded my expenses. SO the result is i paid an engineers fee, got it refunded and then got a working wash machine. Good result (even better when you consider im £144 up on you, of which the money will go towards buying a replacement machine.)

That's cleared that up - thanks for the explanation - I'm entitled to cancel the £4 per month at any point so I will do so when I get the paperwork through.

I appreciate the time you have put into explaining this for me, I'm not very savvy with this stuff.

Kind Regards - Trev

bris

trevyb wrote: »

That's cleared that up - thanks for the explanation - I'm entitled to cancel the £4 per month at any point so I will do so when I get the paperwork through.

I appreciate the time you have put into explaining this for me, I'm not very savvy with this stuff.

Kind Regards - Trev

Forget that dribble, for £4 a month it's really not worth the hassle of trying and failing to enforce your consumer rights. The hoops you need to jump through and reports you need are simply hard to obtain.


Faulty doesn't mean your entitled to a free repair after 6 months let alone 6 years. It's all on you to prove you are.

JC_Derby

spadoosh wrote: »

If spending £4 a month on a product that you probably dont need is saving money then yes.

It appears theres 3 types of fault that can happen with this washing machine. The first being user. So you do something that breaks the machine. Not covered by warranty, not much help in statutory rights.

The second is manufacturing fault. Covered by warranty, covered by statutory rights. They differ slightly in that the warranty option means you dont pay for a engineers fee where as statutory rights you would. Once it was found that it was a manufacturing fault you would be entitled to that fee being waived/refunded. And the product being repaired, replaced or refunded (minus proportionate usage). This is what you claimed under with the first faulty washing machine, incidentally, without the need for a warranty in place.

The third option is what the warranty is perfect for. These are faults that are neither caused by you or manufacturing faults. You wouldnt have to pay an engineers fee for this (if you have the warranty). I cant think of any faults that could happen in the first 3 years of a washing machines life that isnt covered by the previous two options though. If you get one of these faults, whatever they may be, then yes youll have saved some money with the warranty. If these faults cant really happen then youre not saving money.


Lets look at what is a fairly typical fault in washing machines. The belt snaps. Under old rules you wouldnt have much protection, it would be deemed a maintenance issue and in those situations a warranty would be handy. Now you buy a washing machine and theyre not something that is supposed to be 'maintained'. Ie that means the belt is designed to last the life of the product. Legally for white goods you need to be looking at the 6 year mark although on average washing machines will last 11 years. So youve got the warranty i dont. The belt breaks after 2.9 years (assume you went with the 3 year warranty and its cost you £144). You claim through the warranty and get the belt replaced. Good result.

I dont have a warranty. I claim through my statutory rights. Ive got a faulty washing machine that isnt working as is expected. I complain to curry's. Theyll send someone round for £129 to tell me that the belt has snapped. This, to me, is a manufacturing fault. The machine cant be maintained better, theres no suggestion of it needing replacing or assessing etc. And the product, with no recommendations of changing or maintaining the belt, has lasted half the time you could reasonable expect. Under my statutory rights im entitled to a refund, replacement or repair. The refund option could be a bit iffy because they can pro rate the refunded amount to take in to account usage. The other two will leave you with a working washing machine. As soon as the engineer person said the belt had snapped i spoke to currys and they refunded my expenses. SO the result is i paid an engineers fee, got it refunded and then got a working wash machine. Good result (even better when you consider im £144 up on you, of which the money will go towards buying a replacement machine.)

An excellent post thanks


we are going through something similar with a faulty washing machine and then taking out an extended warranty that I don't actually think was needed. (mainly due to me working long hours and not being able to contact people whilst at work - but ease of just saying we will pay that then). original washer faulty around 6 months we thin k but not actually reported til later as we weren't sure whether there was an issue - repaired after 13 months and now replaced - replacement washer been in 2 weeks and now smoking EEK!
all in all a totally unsatisfactory experience.

macman

If you really must buy an extended warranty, then at least wait until the end of the manufacturer's warranty period first. Don't buy it from DSG either, as the mark up is usually at least 100%. Just buy it direct. Buy from JL and you'll get a 2 year warranty anyway, and also 2 years is standard with Bosch.
Given that the machine will have suffered smoke damage, I would expect the Candy engineer to authorise a replacement anyway, not a repair.

[Deleted User]

trevyb wrote: »

Ok, my understanding is that this extended warranty is basically covering just the engineers fee then? My consumer rights cover the repairs / replacements.

If it breaks again within the next 2.6 years then I'll have saved money, whereas if it doesn't I'll be out of pocket.

Kind Regards - Trev

I think what spadoosh is getting at is that extended guarantees are a waste of money over the long run, because in order for the company to make a profit the premiums must exceed the claims.

"If it breaks again I'll have saved money" is like saying you can make a profit if you choose the right lottery numbers: IF.

Yes you might lose in the short term if it breaks down again, but the cost of repair will be covered by not paying insurance in all the years when it doesn't break down. Similarly, if it turns out to be unreliable, and breaks down every year the cost is still covered from money saved by not insuring all the other appliances in the house which haven't broken down.

In short, the more appliances you have in the house, and the more years you analyse the cost over, the more the average works in favour of not insuring (because insurers would go bust if it didn't).

The other factor you need to consider is that extended guarantees are covering the period when the appliance is least likely to break down. The two times in the life of an appliance when it's most likely to fail are when it's new and when it's wearing out, the former is covered by the manufacturer, and the latter is excluded by the insurer. The bit in between that's covered is when you least need it.

Insuring doesn't save money, it shares risk. There's a difference. You shouldn't be thinking of insuring unless the sum insured exceeds what you can afford to fork out as a lump sum (eg: house burning down).