Forum Home» Consumer Rights

Recovering costs of integrated appliance installation when goods supplied are defective

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Recovering costs of integrated appliance installation when goods supplied are defective

4 replies 151 views
I purchased an integrated dishwasher from John Lewis and immediately after installation I discovered that one of the advertised programmes would not work. I am now faced with rejecting the appliance and getting a replacement that John Lewis are willing to supply but they will not cover the cost of removing the defective dishwasher and installing the replacement. They claim this is not covered by their guarantee as they did not fit the machine. I have reffered them to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with states ;
Right to repair or replacement

(1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

I also referred the supplier to a European Court of Justice decision that clarified that where goods are installed by the consumer before the defect becomes apparent, the retailer will be responsible for bearing the cost of removing the defective goods and installing the replacements. This obligation on the retailer will arise even where the consumer, rather than the retailer, installed the original defective product. 

The case is reported here https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/tmt/ECJ_rules_on_replacement_of_installed_faulty_consumer_goods 

but this case pre-dates the Consumer Rights Act by a few years, albeit the previous consumer legislation had broadly similar wording to the 2015 Act.

I believe John Lewis should meet the cost of removing the defective appliance and installing the new one. For this not to be the case I would have to meet the costs of installation twice plus the cost of removing the defective machine. It is clear that a fully integrated dishwasher cannot be tested until it is installed and therefore the possibility consequential losses of having to replace arising if faulty goods are supplied can be reasonable foreseen.

Does anybody have a view or experience as to how this is likely to play out?

Replies

  • Aylesbury_DuckAylesbury_Duck Forumite
    9K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    I suspect that when faced with your points, they'll send someone to remove and refit the appliances.
  • wealdroamwealdroam Forumite
    19.2K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    They claim this is not covered by their guarantee as they did not fit the machine.

    And they may be right, but the terms of their guarantee are not relevant.


    Just a few days ago I wrote pretty much the same as you have - here.

  • SandtreeSandtree Forumite
    2.4K posts
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Who did the installation then if not JL? Was it yourself?

    The CRA allows you to claim damages that can go beyond simply the cost of the item itself however there is a general principle in law that you must mitigate your losses. Installing an item is much harder than uninstalling one; seeing as you didnt need JL’s assistance to install it it begs the question why you need their help to uninstall it and if you are mitigating your losses or just trying to be awkward.
  • Were_DoomedWere_Doomed Forumite
    700 posts
    500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭
    OP didn't say they installed it themselves ... I imagine they were doing a kitchen refurb and their kitchen fitter installed all the appliances - something the OP will have paid them for (in the overall fitting price). As such the OP is correct that JL would be liable for the removal and reinstall costs.

    @ipjeffrey ... how critical is the non-working program? Would a reduction in price by JL be acceptable? (As long as they still remained liable for any further issues which may arise - a non-working program suggests an issue with the controller board). This would save any disruption, and also be a lesser cost solution for JL.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support