Rights from 30 days to 6 months: repair or replace versus repair and replace, before a refund

andrew_12345

We bought an integrated dishwasher that developed a noticeable fault after 5 months - leaking.
We think that it may have been leaking slowly for a while but the leak was behind a kickboard so we didnt notice it.

When we bought it I signed up for the manufacturers 5 year warranty.
When I raised the fault with the retailer they insisted I contact the manufacture since it was after 30 days.

So I have 2 questions:

1/ Is the retailer correct to refer me to the manufacturer since the product was older than 30 days? I think the answer to this is yes but I am not so sure.
(The retailers claim is that it is under warranty - an attempted repair by the retailer would void the warranty).

2/ My second question relates to my lack of understanding of the detail of the repair OR replace rule from 30 days to 6 months

The manufacturer "diagnosed" the fault in one visit and then on a second visit - tried and failed to repair the product . The dishwasher still exhibits the fault.

My question is:

Do they now also have the right to insist that I try a replacement before I ask for a refund?
Or have they used up their turn to "repair or replace" so to speak, and I can now demand a refund because their repair attempt failed?

Thank you for your help.

ItsComingRome

If the manufacturers were acting as the retailers agent's then yes, that would be their attempt at a repair.  They don't appear to be saying that though, they just appear to have fobbed you off to the manufacturer.

They could, arguably, now claim they have not had a chance to repair it as you took it to the manufacturer if you were to try and reject it.  It'd be a bit cheeky under the circumstances but probably legally correct.  I doubt they'd do it though, more likely to just keep trying to send you back to the manufacturer.

andrew_12345

ItsComingRome said:

They could, arguably, now claim they have not had a chance to repair it as you took it to the manufacturer if you were to try and reject it.

Thanks
Just to clarify - I did contact the retailer first and they insisted I go through the manufacturer. So they had a chance of sorts.

At this point I assume i can ask for a refund and I assume that the retailer owes us the refund?

ItsComingRome

andrew_12345 said:

ItsComingRome said:

They could, arguably, now claim they have not had a chance to repair it as you took it to the manufacturer if you were to try and reject it.

Thanks
Just to clarify - I did contact the retailer first and they insisted I go through the manufacturer. So they had a chance of sorts.

At this point I assume i can ask for a refund and I assume that the retailer owes us the refund?

You can ask. They may state that they haven't had a chance to repair it 

Although as I said, more likely is they'll keep referring you back to the manufacturer.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

andrew_12345 said:

ItsComingRome said:

They could, arguably, now claim they have not had a chance to repair it as you took it to the manufacturer if you were to try and reject it.

Thanks
Just to clarify - I did contact the retailer first and they insisted I go through the manufacturer. So they had a chance of sorts.

At this point I assume i can ask for a refund and I assume that the retailer owes us the refund?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

(1)The right to a price reduction is the right—

(a)to require the trader to reduce by an appropriate amount the price the consumer is required to pay under the contract, or anything else the consumer is required to transfer under the contract, and

(b)to receive a refund from the trader for anything already paid or otherwise transferred by the consumer above the reduced amount.

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—

(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

The trader can either agree the manufacture is acting on their behalf or agree by default they mislead you about your consumer rights.

Is this a big company? If so it wouldn't be difficult to show on the balance of probability they tell you contact the manufacture after 30 days.

Just add, if it is still less than 6 months contact them asap by email or letter to exercise you final right to reject as after 6 months they can reduce the refund.

ItsComingRome

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

andrew_12345 said:

ItsComingRome said:

They could, arguably, now claim they have not had a chance to repair it as you took it to the manufacturer if you were to try and reject it.

Thanks
Just to clarify - I did contact the retailer first and they insisted I go through the manufacturer. So they had a chance of sorts.

At this point I assume i can ask for a refund and I assume that the retailer owes us the refund?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

(1)The right to a price reduction is the right—

(a)to require the trader to reduce by an appropriate amount the price the consumer is required to pay under the contract, or anything else the consumer is required to transfer under the contract, and

(b)to receive a refund from the trader for anything already paid or otherwise transferred by the consumer above the reduced amount.

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—

(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

The trader can either agree the manufacture is acting on their behalf or agree by default they mislead you about your consumer rights.

Is this a big company? If so it wouldn't be difficult to show on the balance of probability they tell you contact the manufacture after 30 days.

Just add, if it is still less than 6 months contact them asap by email or letter to exercise you final right to reject as after 6 months they can reduce the refund.

I'm not entirely convinced the retailer has misled the consumer as to their rights, it depends on what was said.  There is mention of the retailer saying that if they attempted a repair they'd void the warranty.  If the conversation was "You need to take it to the manufacturer, we'll void your warranty if we do it" then that appears to be sensible advice in order to retain the warranty (although I suspect a load of old codswallop) rather than an instance that they have no rights with the retailer.

Jenni_D

IIMU (from reading previous threads here) that if you report a fault to the seller and the seller directs you to the manufacturer then that counts as the manufacturer acting as the seller's agent, and thus counts as the seller having had their single attempt at providing a non-refund remedy. How the conversation was worded would be irrelevant - the act of contacting and being redirected is all that is needed.