£900 paid for stove for van has broken after a few weeks. Seller telling me to claim insurance

GervisLooper

This is the item.

They claim a 2 year warranty. See here. I signed up for the warranty within days of buying the product. I notice in the acceptance at the bottom they are trying to pin all fees to the seller if there is a claim. I guess I checked ok for that when applying for the warranty but are they null and void if the consumer rights act states otherwise, since the act says that the seller must pay for return shipping fees and such.

I recall in another recent dispute for a refund people on here stated that what the website says doesn't matter if it goes against legislation.

The main reason I paid so much was due to said warranty and now they are trying to immediately get out of it.

I had had nothing but problems with it from the start. I originally paid 900 rather than the listed 1125 due to a defect in the moulding which I accepted for a price cut. Then there was issues of leaking diesel smell in the cab which I would have tried to rectify myself albeit bothersome. This though has total broken the item from nothing more than what would be normal use.

The issue is that it is a ceramic cook top and I was driving for around 7 hours and by the end of the day when I got home I saw what looked like a glass shard. I opened up the hood and sure enough it had cracked in several places. There were some uneven roads and potholes but that was all on standard uk roads. As such this is normal use and thus the item has failed and is not fit for purpose.

Their reply seems to be trying to take no responsibility of it at all.

All I got was a terse email response of:

You will have to claim on your insurance

 

By all means send us some photo’s of it open if you wish

 

Regards

So they are trying to wash their hands of it immediately.

I read this which article and this seems like it would fall under not fit for purpose. The seller in the above reply seems not even to be attempting to shirk responsibility out of the gate.

tacpot12

If you have home insurance or insurance on van, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do call, the legal helpline provided by the insurer. Ultimately, you or your solicitor will need to follow the instructions in the Which article, and if you say it is not fit for the purpose you need to be able to prove this.

The fact that the item broke is not proof that it wasn't fit for purpose - it could have been installed incorrectly, you could have dropped something on it, the potholes could have been excessively deep. etc. You need to find a way to prove that it broke just by driving the van. I suspect that the supplier knows that this is going to be enormously difficult and really doesn't want to incur a substantial loss on this. While you don't either, sometimes losses are only recoverable by insurance. 

The Warranty excludes damage caused through improper use (i.e. driving over excessively deep potholes), so you have to show that the damage wasn't caused that way. Sorry, I think this is going to be tough. 

If the diesel smell can be shown to be a fault, you might have more rights, but you need an expert to explain what the fault is, and legal advice to see if that fault allows you to have a refund even though the stove top is also damaged. 

LightFlare

It’s states on their site “Installation should be carried out by a qualified professional”

Was it ?

I can see how an incorrectly installed ceramic surface like that could break very easily with a few jolts

elsien

Although there’s a cop out if ever I’ve heard one. Qualified professional in what?

ThumbRemote

When did you buy it?
When did the fault happen?
When did you contact them?

Exact dates needed. 

As you say it's only been a 'few weeks' you may be better ignoring the warranty and claiming under your statutory rights, the Consumer Rights Act. Chances are that after such a short time it's assumed to be faulty and the retailer has to show otherwise. And if so, if they refuse to co-operate, you've got the option of going to small claims court. 

Make sure you communicate by email with them, as the emails could prove to be part of your small claims case later. 

Keep_pedalling

elsien said:

Although there’s a cop out if ever I’ve heard one. Qualified professional in what?

Someone qualified to install something that could kill you with CO poisoning if not done correctly. A heating engineer comes to mind.

GervisLooper

ThumbRemote said:

When did you buy it?
When did the fault happen?
When did you contact them?

1.) 30.11.23

2.) 31.1.24

3.) 1.2.24

Okell

Why go down the warranty route?

If you bought it within the last 6 months and you want to argue that it "broke" because either (a) it's not of staisfactory quality and/or (b) because of  a fault present at purchase, then the onus is on the trader to establish that you are wrong and that it was ok.

See s19(14) and (15)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk).

Not relevant here but their returns policy doesn't seem to comply with the regulations in so far as it's likely to mislead a consumer as to their right to cancel a contract and get a refund

born_again

I had had nothing but problems with it from the start. I originally paid 900 rather than the listed 1125 due to a defect in the moulding which I accepted for a price cut. Then there was issues of leaking diesel smell in the cab which I would have tried to rectify myself albeit bothersome. This though has total broken the item from nothing more than what would be normal use.

So who installed it?

Who built the van?

So this is a follow on of this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6491825/bought-a-stove-for-1125-but-has-a-defect-in-the-moulding-how-much-should-i-ask-for-back-to-keep-it#latest

Okell

Ah...     

Alderbank

Your problem is you are mixing the 'Warranty' up with your statutory rights.
You seem to be trying to apply the T&Cs of the CRA to their warranty. That's not how it works.

The main reason I paid so much was due to said warranty...

The said warranty is absolute pants.
It is a parts-only warranty, you pay for all the labour for any claim, which must be carried out only by the manufacturer.
You pay for disconnection, packing and returning to their premises, as well as the return carriage back to you. If they decide, at their discretion, that the fault is not caused by manufacturing defects then additionally you pay them a  minimum of £50 (+vat) for the privilege of telling you that.

The 'warranty' offers you less than your statutory rights. However you would be barred from making a claim anyway since the many exclusions include:

Warranty does not apply if your product has been used for...permanent or temporary accommodation...

Forget the rubbish warranty, however much you paid for it, and make it clear that you are claiming your statutory rights under consumer law.