Ninja foodi error code but out of warranty

Niknw59

m0bov said:

How did you pay for the item??

I paid with paypal

m0bov

In that case, do a dispute.

HillStreetBlues

m0bov said:

In that case, do a dispute.

Out of time  180 day limit.

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP I would send a letter before action (templates on Google) stating the goods do not conform to the contract in terms of durability and as they are unable to repair or replace request a refund (maybe 80% if such a thing should last 5 years or adjust to whatever is typically expected).

As above, as it’s over 6 months the onus is on you to prove the problem is not due to misuse, user error (typically by way of an independent inspection) but for the cost of a stamp as a bluff they may give you a better offer than 50% off a new one. 

If they didn’t you’d have to decide whether to go to the trouble of having the inspection or accepting their 50% offer (or writing off the whole unit). 

I think I would do this.

But I would also add two things to the letter:

1.  I would make it absolutely clear to Ninja that I am making my claim as to lack of durability under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) and I am NOT claiming under their 12 month warranty.

2.  If there are internet/social media forums raising this as a common problem with this product, I'd provide links to those forums as evidence I'm not the only person this has happened to.

As the_lunatic says, for the price of a stamp the OP has nothing to lose, and if Ninja don't come back with a better offer the OP can decide whether to proceed further  (try to get an independent report and issue a claim)

====================================================================

As an aside and regarding the need for an independent report, is this really necessary where the issue is about durability  (or fitness for purpose) as opposed to whether or not something was faulty at the time of purchase?  I can envisage that an item might not be sufficiently durable or might not be fit for purpose, but at the same time might not be faulty.  I'm not certain an independent report is necessarily required to establish that something is not durable or not fit for purpose?  Does that have to be determined by an expert?

pinkshoes

Niknw59 said:

It was purchased direct from ninja.
Thank you for the reply

In which case you will need to go back to Ninja and claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 instead of the warranty.

But... as it is over 6 months old you will need some sort of independent report showing it has failed due to an inherent design fault rather than misuse. 

It might be worth calling Ninja back, being super nice, and say you are not claiming on the warranty, but under the 2015 CRA, and that given so many reviews online show the device has the same fault, the fault is therefore inherent.

It would then be up to Ninja whether to repair, replace or (partial) refund. The refund can reflect the use you have already had. 

If they want you to get a report done, then fair enough but if the report shows an inherent fault then they need to pay for the report too.

Alderbank

Manxman_in_exile said:

As an aside and regarding the need for an independent report, is this really necessary where the issue is about durability  (or fitness for purpose) as opposed to whether or not something was faulty at the time of purchase?  I can envisage that an item might not be sufficiently durable or might not be fit for purpose, but at the same time might not be faulty.  I'm not certain an independent report is necessarily required to establish that something is not durable or not fit for purpose?  Does that have to be determined by an expert?

In the legal jargon of CRA2015, 'faulty' is not a separate fourth category along the lines of durable, fit for purpose, etc.

CRA says that goods must be satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. That is quite a mouthful so 'faulty' is shorthand for not meeting any part of any of those requirements. So if it is 'not as described' for instance it is by definition 'faulty'. This is different from our everyday use of the word and can be confusing. For example you might ask a shop for 1 metre of a fabric and they actually give you just over a metre. In the language of CRA that fabric, which looks perfect, is 'faulty'.

I agree that independent report is not always necessary.
In many, perhaps almost all cases, the retailer accepts the consumer's unevidenced claim that the goods are faulty and is willing to replace or refund. However CRA says he has to agree the goods are faulty (after one month). If he doesn't agree then you need further evidence to persuade him. If he still doesn't agree and it goes to court, the judge might never have laid hands on a Ninja. He may not even know what it is. He will look for evidence presented by both sides to decide the case on balance of probabilities. This is where you need your independent expert to counter the retailer's defence.