Consumer Rights act query

Hellacott

I bought an outside kettler table 2 years ago with a 3 year warranty. It broke after 5 months and was replaced by kettler. After another 15 months the replacement broke in the same way and I am currently complaining.

 I've been told we can get a replacement table from kettler but we don't want this (because the product keeps breaking and we no longer trust it!). I asked about a refund but the retailer said that it is still under warranty but because we have had the table for 2 our of the three year warranty period, we would only be allowed a third of the money back as a refund.

It seems to me that this should be a consumer rights act situation as the table is not if satisfactory quality because it's durability is on question as it is not lasting as long as it should. Any thoughts? Thanks 

Wonka_2

How is it 'breaking' and is it a known issue i.e. are there other examples in reviews etc of people having the same issue ?

Who did you buy it from ? And was the original replacement via them or direct with manufacturer

How did you pay ?

Not sure you can refuse a replacement on the basis of what 'might' happen in the future - but of it's a known issue then that would support your rejection. 

Is there an alternative proposal you have for them e.g. a different table ?

km1500

I think in general.if you are offered a refund a deduction is usually applied for the use you have had.

Your best bet is to try and negotiate eg the table should last 4 years so only a 50% deduction

Alderbank

Your consumer rights and any warranty are quite separate and unconnected. 
Kettler can say what they like in their warranty. Their obligation in contract law is simply to do what they promise in the warranty.

Consumer law rights are different.
Your consumer law rights are against the trader you bought it from. After two years it is legal for them to offer their choice of repair or replacement. As they seem to be offering a replacement that is all they are required to do.
If they can't repair or replace, or they have tried to repair it and failed, they must offer a refund but it can be scaled down. It looks like any refund offer would be about a third of what you paid. As above, you could try to negotiate.

If the seller is unhelpful it can be difficult to enforce your rights through the courts. There are some other ways dependent on the price you paid and how you paid, which is why you are being asked for more details.

TELLIT01

What broke on the table and what was being done to the table at the time.  I don't suppose the table just broke spontaneously when nobody was near it.  That's not to suggest that whatever was being done was not a reasonable action.

Alderbank

Certainly an interesting question but I'm not sure it is really relevant in this case since table failure has not been disputed on either occasion.

I have heard a lot of complaints about woven rattan and faux rattan garden furniture becoming brittle and 'breaking' in our climate so I assumed it was something boring like that.
However the OP might use these tables for something much more exciting!

tightauldgit

Given that it's more than 6 months old they're entitled to repair or replace rather than refund - whether the fact it's already been replaced and it's failed again means they've used up their one go I'm not clear on but in any case they'd only have to refund you for the item less an amount for the 2 years use that you've had.

In your shoes I'd probably take the replacement and hope for the best in terms of longevity. 

Hellacott

Thanks everyone, for what it's worth the glue holding the for corners of the table hasn't held so they've split apart both times. Nothing exciting to cause it to happen 😁. I've asked for vouchers rather than replacement or partial refund so I'll see what comes of that. I don't really want to put the financial onus on the shop that sold it. 

DullGreyGuy

tightauldgit said:

Given that it's more than 6 months old they're entitled to repair or replace rather than refund - whether the fact it's already been replaced and it's failed again means they've used up their one go I'm not clear on but in any case they'd only have to refund you for the item less an amount for the 2 years use that you've had.

On the second defect the customer is entitled to exercise their final right of rejection (assuming the first replacement was dealt with under consumer rights with the retailer) but as you say that refund can be discounted to represent the use already received.

sheramber

The OP appears to be claiming under warranty . 

I don't really want to put the financial onus on the shop that sold it. 

Manxman_in_exile

Hellacott said:

...I don't really want to put the financial onus on the shop that sold it. 

Why not?  You said in your first post

Hellacott said:

... It seems to me that this should be a consumer rights act situation as the table is not if satisfactory quality because it's durability is on question as it is not lasting as long as it should. Any thoughts? Thanks 

Your consumer rights are against whoever sold it to you, not against who made it.

If you feel it's unfair that the seller should be accountable to you for the manufacturer's poor workmanship, don't be.  The seller is probably in a better position to get a satisfactory resolution from the manufacturer than you are.  So you pursue your statutory consumer rights against the seller and they in turn pursue their contractual rights against the manufacturer.