2½ year old washing machine beyond economical repair.

shaun_from_Africa

bris wrote: »

For one thing the report has to be from an independent expert, Zanussi are neither independent nor ever going to give you a favourable report.

As far as the OP's consumer rights are concerned, (which is what they are trying to enforce) Zanussi are independent as they don't have any form of contract with the OP.

Aylesbury_Duck

Takmon wrote: »

I don't understand why people bother to do this?. I have a washer dryer and I load it to the amount it can dry then put it on a timer and it will wash and dry while I'm at work then it's finished when I get home.

If you load it right up then have to take half out after washing before you dry it sort of defeats the purpose of having a washer dryer because you lose the convience factor and you might aswell have seperate machines.

It's a good idea not having appliances running when you're not around, especially tumble dryers.

ThumbRemote

bris wrote: »

For one thing the report has to be from an independent expert, Zanussi are neither independent nor ever going to give you a favourable report.

Further to shaun from Africa's earlier correct response to this, there's nothing in law that states it has to be an independent expert who provides a report anyway. This is simply useful for the purposes of proof, either to the retailer or to court.

whitegoods_engineer

NeilDeWheel wrote: »

Thanks for the swift replies folks.

BoGoF
“Did you pay for the engineer to come out?”

I called Zanussi and paid for their Fixed Price Repair. I told them I wanted an inspection to see if it was a manufacturing fault.

The operator told me to tell the engineer what I wanted but when he came the engineer said he can't do an inspection and tell if it's a manufacturing fault. I made it abundantly clear I was ringing for an inspection but thought the idea it being able to be repaired was good too.

You were paying for a repair, not an independent report. You cannot dictate the terms of the visit.

The engineer's job is to visit, identify the fault and see if a repair is possible within the terms of the fixed-price repair.

He's not YOUR independent engineer, he's ELECTROLUX's engineer. He cannot give you an independent inspection and report.

You need to pay for an independent engineer who is not associated with Electrolux to do a report to try to establish if the fault is inherent.

Bearing failure is not inherent if it has lasted 21/2 years!

It's wear and tear. No inspection by an appliance engineer is going to establish that failed bearings are inherent.

The only way you will get this is if you manage to obtain data on the failure rate of bearings on this appliance and guess what - only Electrolux will have collated this data and it isn't available to the public, nor to any independent engineer.

ThumbRemote

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

You were paying for a repair, not an independent report. You cannot dictate the terms of the visit.

The engineer's job is to visit, identify the fault and see if a repair is possible within the terms of the fixed-price repair.

He's not YOUR independent engineer, he's ELECTROLUX's engineer. He cannot give you an independent inspection and report.

You need to pay for an independent engineer who is not associated with Electrolux to do a report to try to establish if the fault is inherent.

Bearing failure is not inherent if it has lasted 21/2 years!

It's wear and tear. No inspection by an appliance engineer is going to establish that failed bearings are inherent.

The only way you will get this is if you manage to obtain data on the failure rate of bearings on this appliance and guess what - only Electrolux will have collated this data and it isn't available to the public, nor to any independent engineer.

This is absolutely incorrect.

First of all, as per the messages above, the engineer was entirely able to produce the required inspection. You've just heard the phrase 'independent examiner' on here so often you think it's enshrined in law.

Secondly, wear and tear is completely within the scope of the consumer rights act. For a start, there's no mention of that being an exclusion within the act. There is, however, mention that 'goods must be of satisfactory quality', and one stated aspect of this is 'durability'.

Under the terms of the CRA, it doesn't matter whether a product failed suddenly or wore out gradually; the only thing that matters is whether it is of satisfactory quality. Note that the CRA also doesn't mention inherent - but an inherent fault certainly can be simply poor quality components when purchased.

Within 6 months it is assumed that the goods were not of satisfactory quality, unless the retailer demonstrates they were, eg a fault is caused by misuse. After 6 months it is assumed the goods were of satisfactory quality unless the consumer demonstrates they were not, for example by a report explaining what was unsatisfactory at the point of sale.

It has nothing to do with failure rates of bearings across a model or range of appliances, the only relevant issue is whether the bearings on the purchased model were of satisfactory quality.

The OP could obtain a report stating that the machine has failed because of the bearings, there is no evidence of misuse to the machine, and as the bearings are a sealed unit the OP cannot have done anything directly to them. This would almost certainly be sufficient for a court. Or course, the retailer could try to claim that their products are only expected to last 2 years, but it's not a great defence for a business to take.

Jumblebumble

ThumbRemote wrote: »

This is absolutely incorrect.

First of all, as per the messages above, the engineer was entirely able to produce the required inspection. You've just heard the phrase 'independent examiner' on here so often you think it's enshrined in law.

Secondly, wear and tear is completely within the scope of the consumer rights act. For a start, there's no mention of that being an exclusion within the act. There is, however, mention that 'goods must be of satisfactory quality', and one stated aspect of this is 'durability'.

Under the terms of the CRA, it doesn't matter whether a product failed suddenly or wore out gradually; the only thing that matters is whether it is of satisfactory quality. Note that the CRA also doesn't mention inherent - but an inherent fault certainly can be simply poor quality components when purchased.

Within 6 months it is assumed that the goods were not of satisfactory quality, unless the retailer demonstrates they were, eg a fault is caused by misuse. After 6 months it is assumed the goods were of satisfactory quality unless the consumer demonstrates they were not, for example by a report explaining what was unsatisfactory at the point of sale.

It has nothing to do with failure rates of bearings across a model or range of appliances, the only relevant issue is whether the bearings on the purchased model were of satisfactory quality.

The OP could obtain a report stating that the machine has failed because of the bearings, there is no evidence of misuse to the machine, and as the bearings are a sealed unit the OP cannot have done anything directly to them. This would almost certainly be sufficient for a court. Or course, the retailer could try to claim that their products are only expected to last 2 years, but it's not a great defence for a business to take.

Hi ThumbRemote

It is nice to have someone else disagreeing with all the "experts"

They proclaim exactly what a District Judge will do when they could not possibly know.
They are unaware that District judges do pretty much what they want and are just looking for a fair outcome rather than sticking to the letter of the law
They are unaware that these companies will very likely settle before going anywhere near a court.
The OP has been treated disgracefully by Electrolux

IANAL but what I do know is that District Judges can and will take account of without predjuce offers ( from personal experience)
What I do know is that a large retailer settled with me rather than go to court when i did not have the evidence that the experts insist i would have needed
Finally my best was a few weeks ago when one of the big four banks paid £100 for soft credit checking me wrongly and refusing to tell me why
All the "experts" on here would have without doubt told me "not a chance in hell"
In these matters there is a huge difference between what is legally correct and what happens in the real world where I would be taking a chance that all a DJ will be interested in is if it is reasonable for a 2 year old machine to be beyond economic repair or not, and is it reasonable to charge to send someone out to not examine but to simply tell the OP that this is the case.

Zandoni

Takmon wrote: »

I don't understand why people bother to do this?. I have a washer dryer and I load it to the amount it can dry then put it on a timer and it will wash and dry while I'm at work then it's finished when I get home.

If you load it right up then have to take half out after washing before you dry it sort of defeats the purpose of having a washer dryer because you lose the convience factor and you might aswell have seperate machines.

You are very brave to leave an appliance like this on when you are not home.

calleyw

Zandoni wrote: »

You are very brave to leave an appliance like this on when you are not home.

The fire brigade tell you not use washing machines or tumble driers or dishwashers over night while asleep or not in the house.


https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/the-home/bedtime-checks/


Check out number 3 and 4 and how many do that?


Yours


Calley x

JJ_Egan

Forum Experts posts above .(It is nice to have someone else disagreeing with all the "experts )

Fact is this is a forum its not an Experts forum .
Anyone is free to post .
How do we know that the poster who appears to be an expert is better expert than the experts they decry .
A bit of common decency in pointing out as opposed to slagging off previous posters would not go amiss .


Delete that all the experts on here etc and its a very good post .

Takmon

Zandoni wrote: »

You are very brave to leave an appliance like this on when you are not home.

If you look at it from a safety point of view me being there or not won't stop it catching on fire. If it did catch on fire i would have to leave the house anyway.

So i would much rather get a notification on my phone that smoke is detected and then i ring the fire brigade rather than be in the house and have to run out.

I know that if i'm in the house i may be able to smell a problem earlier but i'm not going to be sat in the same room as it when it's on so being home won't make much difference.