Zanussi Fridge Repair - Breach of Contract?

Manxman_in_exile

ripplyuk said:

Reading through this, it seems Zanussi have created a scenario where their customers are stuck in a loop of having to buy another Zanussi product, unless they want to lose their money. Offering a repair worth up to £500 (which you’d assume would cover literally any fridge issue!) for only £135 is very tempting and seems good value. But since they won’t refund that, there’s no incentive for Zanussi to actually repair it. In fact, it’s a strong incentive for them not to. The customer then has to buy another Zanussi product, or they lose the entire repair fee. 

It seems like an unfair contract term to me. It would be interesting to see this tested in court. 

I think I might be inclined to lean towards this view.

I wouldn't say that Zanussi are deliberately doing anything wrong here, but on the surface the fixed fee scheme could easily be read to make it seem that they have every incentive to declare either that a product is not repairable or that it is "un-economic" to repair.  (It's not spelled out in the T&Cs but I assume that in this context "un-economic" means costing over £500 - but it would be nice to know exactly what they do mean by it).

And as ripplyuk says, the apparent offer of a repair worth up to £500 for a fixed fee of £135 (or is it now £145?) seems very enticing.  Too good to be true perhaps?  I don't know...

As I posted earlier in this thread, if the product turns out not to be repairable or too expensive to repair, then Zanussi really ought to be offering either to refund the full fixed fee or to discount a replacement Zanussi product by that same amount.  (Or if they were really clever they'd discount it by a bit more  - say £150.) 

The point of a fixed fee shouldn't be that it's not refundable if the product can't be repaired; the point should be that the fixed fee is what is paid by the customer regardless of whether the repair actually costs more (up to a specified ceiling) or less.  If no repair is possible, it should be refunded.

What seems particularly odd to me is that if the repair (or attempted repair?) fails - whatever that may mean! - within three months, then they will refund the whole fee.  I don't really see why that is any different from not being able to fix it in the first place?  Why does one get a full refund of the fixed fee but the other only gets the offer of a discount of 50% of the fixed fee against a new product?  I'm sure it's not intended to be, but it does give the impression of being unfair.

I think if it were me I might be tempted to try to reclaim the full fixed fee back via a money claim simply out of curiosity - there's nothing to lose really.  But I'd only do that after putting all the arguments to Zanussi to see how they responded.  TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if they just refunded the full fee, or offered the full fee as a discount against a future purchase - if the OP was happy with that.  And if it got as far as a money claim I wouldn't be surprised if they CBA to defend it.  What's the OP got to lose?

I'm aware that there is an unspoken complication regarding the call out fee.  In the case of a repair that fails within three months, the full fixed fee will be refunded, LESS the call out fee.  The T&Cs say this fee is available on the website but I can't find it - might be typical of confused thinking by Zanussi.  If there is a call out fee involved in the fixed fee repair - and that call out fee is a reasonable amount - I'd say Zanussi can keep that.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The consumer has right to a repeat performance or price reduction in the event of trader failing to carry out a service in accordance with the contract.

Hypothetically if the thermostat was the cause and this was repaired but failed, the trader should reperform (i.e replace the thermostat again) or the consumer is entitled to a price reduction (up to the full contract price).

As I side note I understand they replaced the thermostat but it appears to have turned out that wasn't the cause and they are now saying the actual cause is more than £500 to fix and so they have offered the OP a voucher instead.

The part highlighted above in bold was "It worked when we left so it was repaired", which is basically a company saying "we did something and now tough luck if it didn't work out", can not apply because the CRA overrides such actions (and is no doubt why Zanussi agreed to come out for a second visit). 

It was stated above that if a repair fails Zanussi will refund the fee the customer paid (with whatever caveats added, which appear to be an undisclosed called out fee deduction) and the debate we was discussing was simply whether a repair that then fails is actually classed as repair and in my view it is a repair, otherwise nothing that fails would be classed as a repair. If that was Zanussi's viewpoint it would be misleading as the policy would be worthless seeing as no one would ever be able to claim under it.

Their offer of £75 if they can't repair/it's too expensive to do so is a completely separate issue that I haven't discussed or referenced to at any point. 

ThisnotThat

Manxman_in_exile said:

ripplyuk said:

Reading through this, it seems Zanussi have created a scenario where their customers are stuck in a loop of having to buy another Zanussi product, unless they want to lose their money. Offering a repair worth up to £500 (which you’d assume would cover literally any fridge issue!) for only £135 is very tempting and seems good value. But since they won’t refund that, there’s no incentive for Zanussi to actually repair it. In fact, it’s a strong incentive for them not to. The customer then has to buy another Zanussi product, or they lose the entire repair fee. 

It seems like an unfair contract term to me. It would be interesting to see this tested in court. 

I think I might be inclined to lean towards this view.

I wouldn't say that Zanussi are deliberately doing anything wrong here, but on the surface the fixed fee scheme could easily be read to make it seem that they have every incentive to declare either that a product is not repairable or that it is "un-economic" to repair.  (It's not spelled out in the T&Cs but I assume that in this context "un-economic" means costing over £500 - but it would be nice to know exactly what they do mean by it).

And as ripplyuk says, the apparent offer of a repair worth up to £500 for a fixed fee of £135 (or is it now £145?) seems very enticing.  Too good to be true perhaps?  I don't know...

As I posted earlier in this thread, if the product turns out not to be repairable or too expensive to repair, then Zanussi really ought to be offering either to refund the full fixed fee or to discount a replacement Zanussi product by that same amount.  (Or if they were really clever they'd discount it by a bit more  - say £150.) 

The point of a fixed fee shouldn't be that it's not refundable if the product can't be repaired; the point should be that the fixed fee is what is paid by the customer regardless of whether the repair actually costs more (up to a specified ceiling) or less.  If no repair is possible, it should be refunded.

What seems particularly odd to me is that if the repair (or attempted repair?) fails - whatever that may mean! - within three months, then they will refund the whole fee.  I don't really see why that is any different from not being able to fix it in the first place?  Why does one get a full refund of the fixed fee but the other only gets the offer of a discount of 50% of the fixed fee against a new product?  I'm sure it's not intended to be, but it does give the impression of being unfair.

I think if it were me I might be tempted to try to reclaim the full fixed fee back via a money claim simply out of curiosity - there's nothing to lose really.  But I'd only do that after putting all the arguments to Zanussi to see how they responded.  TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if they just refunded the full fee, or offered the full fee as a discount against a future purchase - if the OP was happy with that.  And if it got as far as a money claim I wouldn't be surprised if they CBA to defend it.  What's the OP got to lose?

I'm aware that there is an unspoken complication regarding the call out fee.  In the case of a repair that fails within three months, the full fixed fee will be refunded, LESS the call out fee.  The T&Cs say this fee is available on the website but I can't find it - might be typical of confused thinking by Zanussi.  If there is a call out fee involved in the fixed fee repair - and that call out fee is a reasonable amount - I'd say Zanussi can keep that.

If Zanussi offered what you're suggesting, the price would increase dramatically.

At the end of the day this is always going to be a gamble on the part of the customer, that the price is less than the actual cost.  If you don't like rolling dice, you can always pay the actual cost (and it'll be more cost effective to do so.)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices contains a comprehensive list of actions that are classed as misleading, pretty much any action that alters the economic behaviour of the average consumer is prohibited. A refund policy that would be impossible to claim would be misleading. 

To offer a policy outside the constraints of the legislation because it wouldn't be profitable for a trader isn't an excuse to do so. 

This policy Zanussi has could generate profit in several ways, good PR by being seen as customer focused, a bet that most repairs will cost less than the fee or, a bet that they can gain more purchases of their appliances through vouchers by most repairs being more than £500 and a certain % taking up the voucher, all of which are fine.

Whilst I'm not suggesting they are doing so, over quoting repairs wouldn't be acceptable. 

You are correct this policy is a bit of a gamble, if it were me I'd be calling a local company for a quote to compare it with Zanussi price of over £500. 

ThisnotThat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices contains a comprehensive list of actions that are classed as misleading, pretty much any action that alters the economic behaviour of the average consumer is prohibited. A refund policy that would be impossible to claim would be misleading. 

To offer a policy outside the constraints of the legislation because it wouldn't be profitable for a trader isn't an excuse to do so. 

This policy Zanussi has could generate profit in several ways, good PR by being seen as customer focused, a bet that most repairs will cost less than the fee or, a bet that they can gain more purchases of their appliances through vouchers by most repairs being more than £500 and a certain % taking up the voucher, all of which are fine.

Whilst I'm not suggesting they are doing so, over quoting repairs wouldn't be acceptable. 

You are correct this policy is a bit of a gamble, if it were me I'd be calling a local company for a quote to compare it with Zanussi price of over £500. 

But what a local company charges for labour isn't going to be the same as Zanussi authorised engineers so it'll be apples and oranges.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The CRA dictates that where a price has not been given, paid, or expressly fixed it must be reasonable.

I don't think this specifically applies to this comparison but it sets a good benchmark for the consumer to argue on the balance of probability

It wouldn't surprise me if this scheme works in a similar way to some types of breakdown cover, in that the major company pay local third parties to do the work.

ThisnotThat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The CRA dictates that where a price has not been given, paid, or expressly fixed it must be reasonable.

I don't think this specifically applies to this comparison but it sets a good benchmark for the consumer to argue on the balance of probability

It wouldn't surprise me if this scheme works in a similar way to some types of breakdown cover, in that the major company pay local third parties to do the work.

But the price WAS given and expressly fixed.

Manxman_in_exile

I don't care if the cost would increase dramatically if it's a more accurate reflection of the true economic cost* - which you seem to be tacitly acknowledging it would be.

The T&Cs look to me to be fundamentally unfair and weighted against the consumer because they pay their £135 and there is nothing to prevent Zanussi from turning up and saying "Sorry mate - it's unrepairable.  We keep your £135 but we can offer you £75 back off a future purchase".  You obviously believe it can't be in Zanussi's interests to do that - but why do you believe that?  They're a commercial company and their only reason for existence is to make money.  If they've already got your £135 in their back pocket, what exactly is their commercial incentive to carry out any repair at all, let alone one costing up to £365 more than you've paid for?  (The odd repair may get done to keep up appearances... )

It might be of course, that Zanussi do act wholly altruistically, but there's nothing in their scheme that allows them to demonstrate that, so it might look a bit dodgy from the outside.  What I'm suggesting is the same principle as an insurance excess.  If you make an insurance claim you are charged an excess in an attempt to deter frivolous or speculative or bogus claims.  In my proposal the fixed fee is refundable in order to deter Zanussi (and/or their technicians) from declaring an item unrepairable when you don't know if it is or not, and them keeping your fee.  This seems so basic and self-evident to me that I'm surprised it's been debated for seven pages and still going...

Of course, if you pay (or receive) any fixed fee it's a gamble, just like visiting a casino.  But when you play roulette at a casino nobody pretends that the odds are not stacked against you - more so on an American layout than a european one.  Trouble here is, I suspect, the odds are even more unfairly stacked against the consumer.

As I said earlier - I don't see what the OP has to lose in challenging Zanussi on this.  And the OP may even decide it's worth making a claim against them.  I'd be interested if they bothered defending it or just paid up to make the OP go away.  Or they may defend and a court find in Zanussi's favour.  Either way, what more does the OP lose?

*I'm definitely in favour of consumer transactions reflecting the true costs involved for all parties.  Far too many services and goods end up as waste of one kind or another because their prices don't reflect the actual costs they incur.

ThisnotThat

Manxman_in_exile said:

I don't care if the cost would increase dramatically if it's a more accurate reflection of the true economic cost* - which you seem to be tacitly acknowledging it would be.

The T&Cs look to me to be fundamentally unfair and weighted against the consumer because they pay their £135 and there is nothing to prevent Zanussi from turning up and saying "Sorry mate - it's unrepairable.  We keep your £135 but we can offer you £75 back off a future purchase".  You obviously believe it can't be in Zanussi's interests to do that - but why do you believe that?  They're a commercial company and their only reason for existence is to make money.  If they've already got your £135 in their back pocket, what exactly is their commercial incentive to carry out any repair at all, let alone one costing up to £365 more than you've paid for?  (The odd repair may get done to keep up appearances... )

It might be of course, that Zanussi do act wholly altruistically, but there's nothing in their scheme that allows them to demonstrate that, so it might look a bit dodgy from the outside.  What I'm suggesting is the same principle as an insurance excess.  If you make an insurance claim you are charged an excess in an attempt to deter frivolous or speculative or bogus claims.  In my proposal the fixed fee is refundable in order to deter Zanussi (and/or their technicians) from declaring an item unrepairable when you don't know if it is or not, and them keeping your fee.  This seems so basic and self-evident to me that I'm surprised it's been debated for seven pages and still going...

Of course, if you pay (or receive) any fixed fee it's a gamble, just like visiting a casino.  But when you play roulette at a casino nobody pretends that the odds are not stacked against you - more so on an American layout than a european one.  Trouble here is, I suspect, the odds are even more unfairly stacked against the consumer.

As I said earlier - I don't see what the OP has to lose in challenging Zanussi on this.  And the OP may even decide it's worth making a claim against them.  I'd be interested if they bothered defending it or just paid up to make the OP go away.  Or they may defend and a court find in Zanussi's favour.  Either way, what more does the OP lose?

*I'm definitely in favour of consumer transactions reflecting the true costs involved for all parties.  Far too many services and goods end up as waste of one kind or another because their prices don't reflect the actual costs they incur.

I believe it because there is no evidence to suggest that isn't the case.

Pointless conspiracy theories that "they're out to get us" are just that, pointless.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ThisnotThat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The CRA dictates that where a price has not been given, paid, or expressly fixed it must be reasonable.

I don't think this specifically applies to this comparison but it sets a good benchmark for the consumer to argue on the balance of probability

It wouldn't surprise me if this scheme works in a similar way to some types of breakdown cover, in that the major company pay local third parties to do the work.

But the price WAS given and expressly fixed.

Yes but once again that’s not what we were discussing which was the cost of repair, not the £135 fee for the service. 

The cost of repair is unknown to the consumer other than being limited to £500. 

As much I hate repeating myself, if it were me I would be having a local company quote the repair. 

If that quote was under £500 I’d be going back to Zanussi to say it can be repaired for under £500.

If they said their fees are higher for whatever reason I’d be using the principles of the CRA I stated above as my arguing point on the balance of probability.