Zanussi Fridge Repair - Breach of Contract?

Al_Ross

As I have already said, a fridge compressor could be replaced for under £500, but no engineer would fancy doing it because it is a pig of a job to replace.

The only other possibly is there is a puncture leak caused by damage somewhere to the internals of the fridge. In this case in wouldn’t be repairable.

Manxman_in_exile

ThisnotThat said:

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.

Conspiracy theories?  If that is the most you can come up with it's not really worth stating.

For the record - I'm not suggesting that there is any conspiracy here or that Zanussi are necessarily doing anything wrong.  What I'm pointing out (for those who cannot see it or who choose not to see it) is the somewhat obvious fact that the fixed price repair scheme is potentially wide open to abuse.  The consumer pays a fixed amount up front to repair their appliance.  As that fixed fee is not refundable if Zanussi are incapable of effecting the repair, I do not see that they necessarily have a great incentive to even attempt a repair rather than just say "Sorry guv - can't fix that" and pocket the fixed fee.  In that sense the non-refundable bit is unfair - whether the OP "agreed" to it or not.

As I said previously, the point of the fixed fee repair scheme is that it gives the consumer certainty that they don't have to pay anything above that £135 fee to get a repair, even if that repair costs up to £500.  That the fee is not refundable if Zanussi can't fix it at all, but is refundable if they do fix it and it fails within three months, is ludicrous.  If they can't fix it, it should be refundable.

I can't see any reason why the OP shouldn't challenge Zanussi strongly on this point, and I don't see what they would have to lose by making a claim against them if Zanussi don't budge.  Presumably you disagree?

Al_Ross

Manxman_in_exile said:

ThisnotThat said:

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.

Conspiracy theories?  If that is the most you can come up with it's not really worth stating.

For the record - I'm not suggesting that there is any conspiracy here or that Zanussi are necessarily doing anything wrong.  What I'm pointing out (for those who cannot see it or who choose not to see it) is the somewhat obvious fact that the fixed price repair scheme is potentially wide open to abuse.  The consumer pays a fixed amount up front to repair their appliance.  As that fixed fee is not refundable if Zanussi are incapable of effecting the repair, I do not see that they necessarily have a great incentive to even attempt a repair rather than just say "Sorry guv - can't fix that" and pocket the fixed fee.  In that sense the non-refundable bit is unfair - whether the OP "agreed" to it or not.

As I said previously, the point of the fixed fee repair scheme is that it gives the consumer certainty that they don't have to pay anything above that £135 fee to get a repair, even if that repair costs up to £500.  That the fee is not refundable if Zanussi can't fix it at all, but is refundable if they do fix it and it fails within three months, is ludicrous.  If they can't fix it, it should be refundable.

I can't see any reason why the OP shouldn't challenge Zanussi strongly on this point, and I don't see what they would have to lose by making a claim against them if Zanussi don't budge.  Presumably you disagree?

In full agreement with you there Manxman.

Manxman_in_exile

I see ThisnotThat's profile is now "private" just like p3ncilsharpener's - who was the first poster to respond (negatively of course) to this thread.

ItsComingRome

Manxman_in_exile said:

I see ThisnotThat's profile is now "private" just like p3ncilsharpener's - who was the first poster to respond (negatively of course) to this thread.

Interesting.

Money_Grabber13579

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I see ThisnotThat's profile is now "private" just like p3ncilsharpener's - who was the first poster to respond (negatively of course) to this thread.

Interesting.

Replacement account?

Thrugelmir

Manxman_in_exile said:

ThisnotThat said:

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.

 If they can't fix it, it should be refundable.

That's not commercially viable. The cost has to borne by someone. To do so would most likely require a higher initial charge which would deter people from attempting to repair and result in scrapping the machine instead. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Thrugelmir said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

ThisnotThat said:

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.

 If they can't fix it, it should be refundable.

That's not commercially viable. The cost has to borne by someone. To do so would most likely require a higher initial charge which would deter people from attempting to repair and result in scrapping the machine instead. 

For my next business I'm going to sell any washing machine you want for £400 but it won't be commercially viable to actually do this so if the washing machine you want costs more than our own undisclosed and inflated prices with a limit of £600 we'll give you a voucher for £200 off other washing machines we sell.  

Manxman_in_exile

Thrugelmir said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

ThisnotThat said:

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.

 If they can't fix it, it should be refundable.

That's not commercially viable. The cost has to borne by someone. To do so would most likely require a higher initial charge which would deter people from attempting to repair and result in scrapping the machine instead. 

No.  What I'm saying would make it more likely that the manufacturer would "try harder" to repair it.  At the moment the manufacturer has every incentive to declare the machine irreparable and to scrap it rather than even try to fix it because they get to keep the fixed fee whether they make the effort to fix it or not*.  Can you not see that?  It's not an efficient way of doing anything

I don't have a problem with the costs having to be borne by someone - but that doesn't mean they have to be borne by just anyone.  What I have a problem with is a system where the consumer pays a fixed fee which they lose whether the manufacturer can fix it or not and which is clearly open to potential abuse.  If Zanussi can't afford to run a fair fixed fee scheme at the price they charge, let them put the price up to an affordable (for them) level and see what consumers do.

Please note, I also don't have a problem with the consumer forking out £135 (or whatever) if the repair only costs half of that.  That is an entirely acceptable risk of such a fixed price offer.  What is not acceptable is that the fee is non-refundable even if the manufacturer is incapable of carrying out the repair.  It's unfairly loaded against the consumer.


*By the way, I'm not saying Zanussi are actually doing this, but if you wanted to design a scheme that was not open and transparent and which was blatantly open to potential abuse, you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything better than this.