Faulty Ikea Wardrobe - need advice

enginestar

Thanks for the replies.
I'm still upset and still think I have a case!
But I'm not going to go mad chasing the issue.

Some points about replies given:

- Faults mentioned like uneven floor, or screws being over tightened - no, I put together myself. Years and years of life have taught me simple things like tightening screws (not being funny, being serious).
- No kids have been swinging or any sort of banging happening.
- YES, it still weighs a ton even though it's hollow wood.

It's been 18 months. That doesn't matter surely.
ALL the responses I have been given, would apply if the purchase had been 7 months old.
Would I have to hire an expert to prove the item was faulty?

You'll have to take my word for it: the wardrobe has JUST been standing there. It was put together properly and doesn't sit on an uneven floor. The doors on average would have been opened a few times a day.

I'm scratching my head why the onus should overwhelmingly be upon me to prove the item was at fault. The item is flimsily made. I know this now seeing the chip board sticking out. When viewing, I had no idea. When fixing, I had no idea. Only now that it's broke do I have an idea.

Surely the SAME requirements mentioned of needing to get expert opinions apply for everything else. Mobile phone fails after 14 months: buyer has to get a mobile phone expert, open up and prove a specific part was faulty. That seems unrealistic.

The same wardrobe is purchased by someone else. Their kids play monkey swinging on the doors and it breaks after 2 months. They will be covered?

I'd love to take the matter further. But am reluctant now given most of the replies.

davidmcn

enginestar wrote: »

I'm scratching my head why the onus should overwhelmingly be upon me to prove the item was at fault.

Because you think it ought to be on the retailer? So, for any claims made (up to six years after sale), the retailer would have to spend time/money investigating whether it was an inherent fault or not, and then write off that cost if it turned out to be a spurious claim? I think shifting the onus after six months is reasonable.

Like I said, a repair seems a simpler solution.

Gavin83

enginestar wrote: »

ALL the responses I have been given, would apply if the purchase had been 7 months old.
Would I have to hire an expert to prove the item was faulty?

Yes and yes.

enginestar wrote: »

I'm scratching my head why the onus should overwhelmingly be upon me to prove the item was at fault.

Because that's the law. After 6 months the onus is on you.

enginestar wrote: »

Surely the SAME requirements mentioned of needing to get expert opinions apply for everything else. Mobile phone fails after 14 months: buyer has to get a mobile phone expert, open up and prove a specific part was faulty. That seems unrealistic.

In this example the independent report would still be required. Not at all unrealistic.

enginestar wrote: »

The same wardrobe is purchased by someone else. Their kids play monkey swinging on the doors and it breaks after 2 months. They will be covered?

No, they wouldn't be covered. However it would be down to the retailer to investigate but if they're report found the problem was down to misuse then they wouldn't be obliged to refund.

Ultimately if the report determines the failure is due to a manufacturing fault the fee for this report will be refunded. I'd expect the cost of this report to be around £70. It's up to you if you consider this worth pursuing or not.

Honestly given the damage I'd suggest that significant pressure was applied to the door and I'd expect IKEA to think the same. However I'm not an expert, they may disagree.

I agree with davidmcn, I think the easiest solution all round is to repair it. Alternatively ask IKEA if they can just supply you the broken panel/hinge. They may even be willing to do this for no cost.

enginestar

I don't like the advice given! Grrrrrr!
Thanks all the same - it's a hard pill to swallow.
At least I am a lot wiser now.
Thanks for all replies.