Retailer pushing back on Consumer Rights 2015

redhotears

Hello all,

Please would someone help us with their experience / advice.

We purchased a washing machine online from a UK retailer on 14th September 2022 using a debit card and it was delivered on 21st September 2022.

It developed a fault (unfortunately just after 30 days) and we reported it initially to the manufacturer by day 40 and to the retailer by day 56. The nature of the fault is a loud grating noise while washing. It has worsened over time and makes the machine unusable as it is so loud it causes a disturbance throughout our small flat and is upsetting to our noise sensitive child.

The manufacturers engineers have now visited on three occassions to fix the issue.

Our understanding of Comsumer Rights 2015 is that - as we made the purchase online, we have the right to a refund or replacement if the machine develops a fault whithin six months after purchase.

We have quoted the Consumer Rights to them but they are insisting that the onus is on us to prove that the machine is faulty.

We previously requested an exchange or refund but now we are asking for a full refund.

I have included an extract of their latest response below which shows that their opinion is that the onus is on us to prove that the manufacturer has been unable to fix the machine:

"Upon reviewing your case, I have contacted (the manufactuer) today to discuss this case with their team leaders. They have informed that since last visiting ...... the machine is working correctly however I have understood from your latest email that the issue is worsening and you would like to proceed under Consumer Rights Act of 2015. As my colleague explained previously, the warranty covers repairs for manufacturing faults and an alternative resolution can be provided if the machine cannot be repaired.
 
Regarding your wish to claim under the sale of goods act; which has been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I regret we would not be able to consider your claim in this instance as the criteria for this has not been met. For a successful claim under this act, the quality of goods can only be claimed against within the initial 30 days of purchase for the right to reject the device.

After this point in your case, it is acceptable under the Act for a fault to develop which is why a guarantee is offered by most manufacturers and retailers to protect the customer against additional loss in relation to the cost of the repair or labour, we would require an official report from a VAT registered engineer stating that the unit itself is inherently faulty, a recurrent fault after a previous repair or is unable to be repaired through the manufacturers standard repair methodology. The onus is on you the consumer to provide this and we will not be doing that for you, you have stated your rights so you would need to prove this under the act."

Is what they say correct? Everything we have read seems to show we have a right to return a faulty good up to six months after purchase and the most we are obliged to do is offer an opportunity for the machine to be fixed which has now been attempted on three occassions.

Thanks in advance. We're so exhausted.

HillStreetBlues

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.

Wonka_2

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.

But as devils advocate the Retailer (with whom the responsibility lies) wasn't given the original choice re repair/replace/refund as this was taken out of their hands by the manufacturer who the OP contacted first.

Could the Retailer now justifiably offer a 'first' repair before agreeing what to do next ?

Interested in the outcome of Retailer vs Manufacturer responsibility here

Alderbank

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.the machine is working correctly

The onus is indeed on them. 
However the OP says the retailer has done exactly that, at least to their own satisfaction.
The OP says the manufacturers engineers have now visited on three occasions to fix the issue, and as a result the retailer claims that the machine is now working correctly.

OP, what did those engineers say was the cause of the noise and what did they do to fix it?

From the limited description we have been given it sounds as though a foreign body (keys, coins, perhaps) have got between the rotating drum and the outer casing.

I think that to make progress at this stage the OP will have to get their own report from an independent engineer, as proposed by the retailer. If the engineer's report supports the OP's claim they can recover the cost of it from the retailer.

HillStreetBlues

Wonka_2 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.

But as devils advocate the Retailer (with whom the responsibility lies) wasn't given the original choice re repair/replace/refund as this was taken out of their hands by the manufacturer who the OP contacted first.

Could the Retailer now justifiably offer a 'first' repair before agreeing what to do next ?

Interested in the outcome of Retailer vs Manufacturer responsibility here

I looked at the dates as only 16 days  between contracting manufacturer and retailer.
So assumed  one of the visits would have been after the OP informed  the retailer.

But would be helpful if the OP could confirm if a visit occurred after the retailer was informed.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Which retailer is it OP?

Alderbank said:

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.the machine is working correctly

. 
However the OP says the retailer has done exactly that, at least to their own satisfaction.
The OP says the manufacturers engineers have now visited on three occasions to fix the issue, and as a result the retailer claims that the machine is now working correctly.

The issue is that it's not difficult for the OP to show there is a problem with the machine, they just need to turn it on and film the noise it makes.

Had the visit resulted in them claiming the OP had damaged the machine I'd fully agree with you but saying it works correctly when it can easily be shown it doesn't is hardly demonstrating otherwise. 

OP I would send them this:

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

(14)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.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

With a video of the noise attached and advise that if they do not repair you will be exercising your final right to reject (as you require a repair/replacement and they are failing to do so within a reasonable time) and I'd get that rejection in before the 6 month time from delivery passes so you get a full refund.

Beyond that it's letter before action and small claims.

Most of what they've said to you is nonsense, what Alderbank raises is a valid point but as above why I see slightly differently. 

Final right to reject is here:

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

(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;

(b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

redhotears

All, thanks so much for your responses

Wonka_2 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.

But as devils advocate the Retailer (with whom the responsibility lies) wasn't given the original choice re repair/replace/refund as this was taken out of their hands by the manufacturer who the OP contacted first.

Could the Retailer now justifiably offer a 'first' repair before agreeing what to do next ?

Interested in the outcome of Retailer vs Manufacturer responsibility here

@Wonka, my biggest regret in this whole thing is that I thought I was being proactive in organising the repair with the manufacturer mysself . MOH did say that I should go straight to the retailer.

redhotears

Alderbank said:

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.the machine is working correctly

The onus is indeed on them. 
However the OP says the retailer has done exactly that, at least to their own satisfaction.
The OP says the manufacturers engineers have now visited on three occasions to fix the issue, and as a result the retailer claims that the machine is now working correctly.

OP, what did those engineers say was the cause of the noise and what did they do to fix it?

From the limited description we have been given it sounds as though a foreign body (keys, coins, perhaps) have got between the rotating drum and the outer casing.

I think that to make progress at this stage the OP will have to get their own report from an independent engineer, as proposed by the retailer. If the engineer's report supports the OP's claim they can recover the cost of it from the retailer.

@Alderbank. The first engineer to attend believed the suspnesion had not been lubricated enough so added some silicon lubricant. For the first wash it was quieter but obviously it just got worse over time.

The second engineer said that the machine had been fitted with the incorrect suspension. That's why he had to order the parts and return for a third visit.

I really thought that would make it clear cut that is was received faulty

Gavin83

Just to confirm as it’s not entirely clear, is the machine now working after the 3rd attempt or is it still broken?

redhotears

HillStreetBlues said:

Wonka_2 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.

But as devils advocate the Retailer (with whom the responsibility lies) wasn't given the original choice re repair/replace/refund as this was taken out of their hands by the manufacturer who the OP contacted first.

Could the Retailer now justifiably offer a 'first' repair before agreeing what to do next ?

Interested in the outcome of Retailer vs Manufacturer responsibility here

I looked at the dates as only 16 days  between contracting manufacturer and retailer.
So assumed  one of the visits would have been after the OP informed  the retailer.

But would be helpful if the OP could confirm if a visit occurred after the retailer was informed.

@HillStreetBlues I can confirm visits 2 and 3 were after the retailer were informed. I didn't want to take up too much space with the timeline I had prepared earlier.

Great show: "Sit Down Dog Breath", "Judas Priest Harry!" (Hill Street Blues)

HillStreetBlues

Alderbank said:

HillStreetBlues said:

They are wrong, as it happened within 6 months the onus is on them to prove the fault wasn't inherent.
The retailer would be allowed to chose between a refund a repair or replacement, but they only get one chance to repair the issue, then you can demand a full refund.the machine is working correctly

The onus is indeed on them. 
However the OP says the retailer has done exactly that, at least to their own satisfaction.
The OP says the manufacturers engineers have now visited on three occasions to fix the issue, and as a result the retailer claims that the machine is now working correctly.

OP, what did those engineers say was the cause of the noise and what did they do to fix it?

From the limited description we have been given it sounds as though a foreign body (keys, coins, perhaps) have got between the rotating drum and the outer casing.

I think that to make progress at this stage the OP will have to get their own report from an independent engineer, as proposed by the retailer. If the engineer's report supports the OP's claim they can recover the cost of it from the retailer.

The engineers may have stated it was repaired but the OP has said the  fault returned ( I will give the  OP the assumption of the washing machine is still noisy)

So the retailer may deem it was repaired, but the OP claims otherwise,  so it's up to the retailer to show it is currently working as it should be, not just when an engineer left.
Also the  engineers haven't a good track record on repairing the issue, shown by the fact they have kept returning.