Broken fridge

Al_Ross

Grumpy_chap said:

A cheap fridge went wrong after 3 years - I would not consider that exceptionally short.

There is a report saying the fridge is irreparable.  Does that report say the fault was inherent from new?

 

Inherent faults are not there from new but can show years later due to design or poor component choice, build quality etc.

I agree the report should state why the wiring has failed though.

Beko are the cheapest rubbish brand, advice avoid them and Currys like the plague

Grumpy_chap

Al_Ross said:

Inherent faults are not there from new but can show years later due to design or poor component choice, build quality etc.

I disagree.  By definition, an "inherent fault" is there from new, though I do accept it may not exhibit until later.  For example, an inherent fault due to poor component choice, that component was still there from new.

neilmcl

Grumpy_chap said:

Al_Ross said:

Inherent faults are not there from new but can show years later due to design or poor component choice, build quality etc.

I disagree.  By definition, an "inherent fault" is there from new, though I do accept it may not exhibit until later.  For example, an inherent fault due to poor component choice, that component was still there from new.

Whilst that may be the case the CRA (unlike SOGA) actually makes no mention of the term 'inherent fault'. Even back with SOGA any report didn't have to specifically state the term 'inherent fault', it would merely need to show, on the balance of probabilities, that any fault couldn't have been caused by the user or natural wear & tear and therefore the likelihood was that it was present, either physically or by design, at the time of purchase.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

Al_Ross said:

Inherent faults are not there from new but can show years later due to design or poor component choice, build quality etc.

I disagree.  By definition, an "inherent fault" is there from new, though I do accept it may not exhibit until later.  For example, an inherent fault due to poor component choice, that component was still there from new.

As Neil says the CRA doesn't use the term inherent anywhere, it deals with the goods conforming the contract under the following statutory rights:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/2/crossheading/what-statutory-rights-are-there-under-a-goods-contract/enacted

stevec1968

Thanks all for your comments, which are very interesting.

The fidge cost £750 so I am sure that a reasonable man would expect it to last more than 3 years.

I would like to take it further as I cannot believe that Currys can dismiss this so easily, but where do I go next ?
Small claims court ? is there arbitration ?

Aylesbury_Duck

At £750 I'm not surprised to want to take it further, but it will be an uphill challenge.  Small claims court is an option, but you'd need to make a convincing case that the fridge was faulty or doomed to premature failure when you bought it.  There is and can now only ever be one technical report, so it would seem to be down to exactly what that says.  Currys may settle rather than go to the trouble of defending it but equally, they may feel they're on solid ground if the report is inconclusive and of course you have denied them the chance to further inspect the fridge.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP before the fridge was taken away for disposal did you contact Currys about the issue? 

mattyprice4004

stevec1968 said:

Thanks all for your comments, which are very interesting.

The fidge cost £750 so I am sure that a reasonable man would expect it to last more than 3 years.

I would like to take it further as I cannot believe that Currys can dismiss this so easily, but where do I go next ?
Small claims court ? is there arbitration ?

Yes it is reasonable for it to last more than 3 years, yes I would expect the same too - but without the fridge for them to inspect you are on a hiding to nothing. 
Do you honestly expect them to pay up just because you have a report but no physical evidence? They're within their rights to inspect the fridge, and if you cannot let them do that they owe you nothing. 
It wouldn't matter if the report was written by God himself, Currys have the right to inspect the product if they wish. 

You simply can't expect to get some money out of them for a product you no longer own and can't return; it makes no sense at all. 
Small claims is your next route, but it'll cost you money to file a claim, money to assign it to a hearing and all of which you could well lose when a judge hears that you didn't give Currys the opportunity to inspect the product. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

mattyprice4004 said:

stevec1968 said:

Thanks all for your comments, which are very interesting.

The fidge cost £750 so I am sure that a reasonable man would expect it to last more than 3 years.

I would like to take it further as I cannot believe that Currys can dismiss this so easily, but where do I go next ?
Small claims court ? is there arbitration ?

Do you honestly expect them to pay up just because you have a report but no physical evidence? They're within their rights to inspect the fridge, and if you cannot let them do that they owe you nothing. 

Which bit of the Consumer Rights Act are you relying on to confirm that statement?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

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.

It's been discussed here before that as it is taken that the goods do not conform within 6 months this means after 6 months it is not taken. 

OP has a report from the manufacture (let's put aside what that report actually details and whether this confirms the goods did not conform for this moment), who are Currys going to get that has more experience than the manufacture engineer to inspect the goods? 

Coupled with the right to a price reduction (to be fair I'm not 100% certain but it may apply in this particular case) I don't see anything that says the retailer actually has a right to inspect the goods if the consumer has demonstrated that they do not conform.

I agree that ultimately it comes down to small claims and OP has significantly weaken their position but the real question is, are Currys going to spend money getting a second report any way (doubtful), are they going to spend money defending the claim? 

If OP were to send a letter before action requesting a very reasonable amount (maybe £150-250), it only costs them a stamp and there's a chance of them being paid.

If they cite the right to a price reduction in such an instance the consumer retains the goods so the fact they can't be returned is academic. 

pinkshoes

stevec1968 said:

Thanks all for your comments, which are very interesting.

The fidge cost £750 so I am sure that a reasonable man would expect it to last more than 3 years.

I would like to take it further as I cannot believe that Currys can dismiss this so easily, but where do I go next ?
Small claims court ? is there arbitration ?

You cannot take it further.

Your rights under the Consumer Rights Act would then give Currys the option to replace, repair or refund. THEIR choice. They would also be permitted to examine the fridge themselves.

By disposing of the fridge you have unfortunately lost all consumer rights in this scenario as it can no longer be examined by Currys, nor repaired if they wanted to. Also, the fridge would then belong to them if you were to get a partial refund or replacement.

You will need to chalk this down experience and at least you will know for next time about Consumer Rights in addition to a warranty.