Fridge Freezer Faulty after 4 years

Chrissy2020

I think the £50 has come from the report that stated the repair would also cost £50 for the call off / fitting charge.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I would expect a £800 appliance to last longer than 6 years, a 2 second Google suggests 10 years. 

I would go back to AO and point out that the goods do not conform to the contract in terms of durability and you have a report to demonstrate this which they have accepted so you are entitled to a repair or replacement and if they are not willing to provide one you will be exercising the final right to reject and seeking a refund of around £480 (you can work this out exactly to the month based upon when you purchased the appliance and the day you send the communication to exercise the right based).

I'd have a look on CEO email and us the contact there and cc in either the general customer service email or contact of whoever has email you in the past if appliable. 

If they offer something close to the amount you request I'd accept but if they are offering a low amount I'd send them a letter before action (templates can be found on Google), I doubt AO are going to go to small claim for £400-£500 on an appliance  with a confirmed issue. 

The important aspect is to clearly state you are exercising the final right to reject  

screech_78

Alderbank said:

screech_78 said:

The company I work with would offer £267 on an item priced at £800 that was faulty exactly 4 years after purchase. It would decrease with every month of ownership. 

Interesting.
That's a very precise figure. What does your company do if the customer tries to negotiate?

We have a method of calculation. Depends on the circumstances. For the most part, if a partial refund is offered, then the amount is the amount. We’ve had 2 customers in the last year take us to court over the amount offered in a CRA claim. We won both times. 

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

Alderbank said:

screech_78 said:

The company I work with would offer £267 on an item priced at £800 that was faulty exactly 4 years after purchase. It would decrease with every month of ownership. 

Interesting.
That's a very precise figure. What does your company do if the customer tries to negotiate?

Can see why it's precise, classed it as 2 years left of 6,  but interested to know  about a negotiation.

The likes of JL do number of months of ownership divided by 72 to calculate the amount to deduct 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Whilst it's only guidance, a different view to the idea of 6 years vs time owned, the example is very interesting (although not applicate to the OP). 





https://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Business-AdviceGuidance/Guidance-for-Business-Consumer-Rights-Act.pdf

 

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst it's only guidance, a different view to the idea of 6 years vs time owned, the example is very interesting (although not applicate to the OP). 





https://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Business-AdviceGuidance/Guidance-for-Business-Consumer-Rights-Act.pdf

 

Its not very interesting as it doesn't actually propose any methodology for calculating it other than to state you cannot factor time it was broken/being repaired and reiterating that its a deduction for use and not supposed to reflect 2nd hand value.

The law is full of examples of crude estimations/proxies... in a case on appeal a couple of years ago the judge's judgement was full of him wax lycricalling about the fact that in a motor accident the claimant is actually entitled to claim for the depreciation in the value of their vehicle caused by the damage and the claim for repair costs is just a proxy for that. Speak to any Motor Engineer however and they will reduce the pre accident value by less than what the repair cost would have been because people always underestimate the cost 

the time of ownership -v- a period of time (6 being the norm) is equally crude but at least acknowledges that the use of your fridge etc is constant whereas depreciation is a curve

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

Its not very interesting as it doesn't actually propose any methodology for calculating it other than to state you cannot factor time it was broken/being repaired and reiterating that its a deduction for use and not supposed to reflect 2nd hand value.

The law is full of examples of crude estimations/proxies... in a case on appeal a couple of years ago the judge's judgement was full of him wax lycricalling about the fact that in a motor accident the claimant is actually entitled to claim for the depreciation in the value of their vehicle caused by the damage and the claim for repair costs is just a proxy for that. Speak to any Motor Engineer however and they will reduce the pre accident value by less than what the repair cost would have been because people always underestimate the cost 

the time of ownership -v- a period of time (6 being the norm) is equally crude but at least acknowledges that the use of your fridge etc is constant whereas depreciation is a curve

Well it does and it doesn't, it doesn't give you a specific manner of doing so but that is the point, there isn't one, it should be based on the specifics of the each example.

In comparison, a everything last years 6 years so we give x based on that fails to take account of the specifics. 

I agree the use of a fridge is constant, I'm not sure where the idea of 6 years being the norm comes from? I understand it's the statute of limitations in E&W but I don't see what bearing that has on anything. 

Perhaps goods sold under Scottish law are only built to last 5 years.... 

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Its not very interesting as it doesn't actually propose any methodology for calculating it other than to state you cannot factor time it was broken/being repaired and reiterating that its a deduction for use and not supposed to reflect 2nd hand value.

The law is full of examples of crude estimations/proxies... in a case on appeal a couple of years ago the judge's judgement was full of him wax lycricalling about the fact that in a motor accident the claimant is actually entitled to claim for the depreciation in the value of their vehicle caused by the damage and the claim for repair costs is just a proxy for that. Speak to any Motor Engineer however and they will reduce the pre accident value by less than what the repair cost would have been because people always underestimate the cost 

the time of ownership -v- a period of time (6 being the norm) is equally crude but at least acknowledges that the use of your fridge etc is constant whereas depreciation is a curve

Well it does and it doesn't, it doesn't give you a specific manner of doing so but that is the point, there isn't one, it should be based on the specifics of the each example.

In comparison, a everything last years 6 years so we give x based on that fails to take account of the specifics. 

I agree the use of a fridge is constant, I'm not sure where the idea of 6 years being the norm comes from? I understand it's the statute of limitations in E&W but I don't see what bearing that has on anything. 

Perhaps goods sold under Scottish law are only built to last 5 years.... 

But a more helpful article would give at least some suggestions or worked examples of how numbers were derived. At least for the majority of items which do have fairly constant use (white goods, brown goods, furniture, normal clothing etc).


The "specifics of each case" could lead to some big arguments... that the wedding dress that the zip breaks on at the end of the event when taking it off... has that had 100% of its use already? Its resale value is damaged. It's now useless for the "trash the dress" photoshoot she was thinking about.

Likewise all those gadgets (bread maker, smoothie maker, planitarium projector) that get used heavily for the first few months then sit in the back of the cupboard for most the rest of the time... should the use charge be equally front loaded?

How do you apply it to emergency/backup type things? I've had a UPS running 3 years but not had any blackouts in all that time so its not been used once but was there and providing backup should it be needed... same with fire extinguishers 

For very high value items I can see lawyers having fun arguing over the appropriate way to judge use but for the majority a simple broad brushstroke approach is simpler for all. Ideally the comparator probably should be something more like the class of items likely lifespan but still the flat 6 gives the swings and roundabouts that you will lose on some items but probably get more on others that have a less than 6 year life.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

It does give specific examples, the type of goods, their intended use and their lifespan.

The CRA also chips in with description, price and public statements (for assessing reasonable quality).  

I agree the lifespan is up for debate but I don’t see what bearing the limitation timeframe has to do with that. 

I can completely see it works well for a retailer with the “swings and roundabouts” analogy but for the average consumer there shouldn’t be that many instances of being in a such a situation so to them, for who the law is designed to protect, you win some you lose some doesn’t apply. 

If I paid £800 for a fridge and was offer £267 after 4 years I would be, to put it in acceptable forum language, peeved. 

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If I paid £800 for a fridge and was offer £267 after 4 years I would be, to put it in acceptable forum language, peeved. 

Mine was 2.5 years old so proportionally higher but I also got them to pay the same percentage on the same priced matching freezer, got to keep both, and claimed for the spoiled food for the 3 times it had broken down. All in all it equated to a full refund and despite not having been fixed the fault has never reoccured in the 2 years since (fault confirmed by Samsung's own engineers)... The food was lost each time so I am down on paper but wasn't unhappy with the overall outcome.