Out of warranty high value product

hb9505

Hope you can please help with some advice.

my 3-year warranty ran out on a  £2400 Rangmeaster range cooker from john Lewis in end of July. 1 month later the cooker stopped working, john Lewis say won't do anything as warranty finished. is there anything I can do please as I would have expected such an expensive cooker to work more than 3 years.

DE_612183

Did you have an option of an extended warranty?

You could complain to  the manufacturer highlighting the fact that you'd expect it to last longer than it did, they may get someone to look at it - but be prepared to pay if it's just diagnosed as wear and tear...

hb9505

It's an induction hob and 3 of the hobs have stopped working, on the the garuntee papers it mentions we will let you know when it's ending but I was not sent any reminders

DullGreyGuy

hb9505 said:

Hope you can please help with some advice.

my 3-year warranty ran out on a  £2400 Rangmeaster range cooker from john Lewis in end of July. 1 month later the cooker stopped working, john Lewis say won't do anything as warranty finished. is there anything I can do please as I would have expected such an expensive cooker to work more than 3 years.

You need to remind JL of your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act and that you dont think 37 months is a reasonable lifespan of a cooker.

JL being how they are these days will almost certainly ask you to provide an engineers report from a VAT registered expert. 

Be aware that under the CRA they have the choice to repair, replace or refund as they see fit and a refund can be reduced to reflect the use you had before it died. With JLs methodology that would mean a just under 50% refund.

Alternatively, speak to Rangemaster, assuming they are the provider of the warranty. Sometimes companies will give you some grace on these things, certainly Miele agreed to repair our item 3 months after the 24 month warranty expired but then we had mentioned it to them when there was an intermittent error code which they said to just turn off/on which used to clear it (they didn't have record of the call though). 

hb9505

this was the message from john Lewis about CRA

 "It is my understanding that under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 it would be expected that at least one repair be completed on the appliance before any claim on the appliance can be made.

 

As of this writing we are not aware of any prior service history on this appliance, along with conformation of the present fault in the form of a service report from either an authorised or accredited service personnel. This you would be expected to provide before any claim would be considered.

 

Again it is my understanding that, the exception to this would be if the fault was present from the point of sale. this again, due to the age of the appliance would need to be demonstrated as such in the form of conformation from service personnel.

 

Once the above is provided we would be happy to review and revisit this request to claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

DullGreyGuy

hb9505 said:

this was the message from john Lewis about CRA

 "It is my understanding that under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 it would be expected that at least one repair be completed on the appliance before any claim on the appliance can be made.

 

As of this writing we are not aware of any prior service history on this appliance, along with conformation of the present fault in the form of a service report from either an authorised or accredited service personnel. This you would be expected to provide before any claim would be considered.

 

Again it is my understanding that, the exception to this would be if the fault was present from the point of sale. this again, due to the age of the appliance would need to be demonstrated as such in the form of conformation from service personnel.

 

Once the above is provided we would be happy to review and revisit this request to claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

The "one repair rule" is in relation to you being able to reject the goods and insist on a refund, at this point you are leaving it open to them to decide if to repair, replace or refund. To the best of my knowledge that first repair has to be done under the instruction of the retailer anyway else its easy for them to say the random bod you got to fix it yourself didn't do a proper job and so its an issue with the repair not the device. 

The second part is correct, after 6 months it's up to you to prove it's faulty via an appropriate report. Ideally the said report should explicitly state it has an inherent fault which would be inferred from them saying its a manufacturing issue (given manufacturing happened before it was sold) but they like to see the explicit phrase. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Basically OP see if you can get a local appliance repair person out to have a look and write down what the problem is.

When JL say the problem has to be there from the start, that is correct but doesn't mean the 3 hobs had to be non-working, rather a component inside the hob wasn't durable enough to last a reasonable time and this has now come to light by it's failure. 

"Proof" is only required to be more than less rather than 100% so anything to suggest the issue wasn't caused by yourself would be ideal.

There's no obligation to have the thing "serviced" in the sense that most would understand it.

If JL try to stick to their 6 years lifespan for the purpose of a refund with a deduction for use, this is a credible source suggesting otherwise for ovens and hobs (9-15 years):

https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A_Guide_to_product_lifespans.pdf

It would seem JL is doing their best to use language which the average person doesn't understand, or believes to mean something else, in an attempt to get them to go away.

hb9505

any tips on what my next reply to them should be. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

hb9505 said:

any tips on what my next reply to them should be. 

After 6 months you'd need the "report/proof/whatever you want to call it" so you'd obtain that and then advise as the goods did not conform to the contract in terms of durability at the time of delivery you are entitled to a remedy of a repair or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act.

If they refuse to provide either then send a letter before action advising you are now exercising the final right to reject and seeking £x as a refund (calculated as lifespan minus time owned) after which it's small claims. 

You'd hope to get somewhere once you've got the "proof" of the problem  

Alternatively if they won't repair/replace you can seek a price reduction, for example the cost of having it fixed, if that were to be less than the value once a deduction for use is applied.  

TELLIT01

After 3 years it's not unreasonable for JL to require evidence of the fault, and the cost of providing that evidence will fall to the OP in the first instance.  Once/if evidence is provided and if JL accept there is a fault, rather than just wear and tear, see what offer is made.  At that point the OP should request that JL reimburse the cost of the engineer report.

Has the OP tried speaking to Rangemaster?

tightauldgit

I don't know the ins and outs of how JL work on these things but if it was me I'd write to them and set out:

1 You are making a claim under the CRA as the appliance has failed after 37 months when the products are promoted as lasting 15-20 years (https://www.stovesareus.co.uk/brands/rangemaster-range-cookers/rangemaster-range-cookers.html?page=1)

2. Given the above you are requesting a repair or replacement in line with the CRA - should that not be forthcoming that you would request a refund of 82% of the purchase price (37 months usage subtracted from a 210 month typical lifespan) 

3. You are happy for JL to send out an engineer to inspect or check the item at their expense to satisfy themselves that the fault was not caused by misuse

4. Should JL require an independent report before proceeding you will commission one but will look to recover the costs of this should the item be shown not to comply with the CRA 

Basically give them as many 'outs' as possible to settle it one way or another without the hassle of getting an engineers report but making it clear that you will if required?