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

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

GervisLooper said:

elsien said:

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

Indeed.

Does the 'must be installed by a professional' have any legal weight? A website can write anything on their site but doesn't necessarily make it legally binding. If I write must be installed by 2 middle aged leprechauns would that give me immunity if I sold something to someone and they didn't do follow it to the letter?

Also there is no regulatory body of van builders so I am not sure how they would prove professional or not especially since they do not say what type.

It reminds me of professional hypnotists with loads of "degrees" on their walls.

You would have to take that as a company that does this for as their business.

So just who did fit the cooker?

I would expect the stove to be fitted by a member of the NCC Approved Workshop Scheme, with the appropriate certificates for gas appliances.
Their membership is well into the hundreds, with businesses and mobile engineers all across the country.
In my (quite broad) experience, they're rarely even that expensive and have consistently given me good service.

This sounds like error during installation. The internet is full of similar tales....

From the Thermotechnica website

PLEASE NOTE: Gas appliances should only be signed off by a Gas Safe registered installer and in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Thermo Technica reserve the right to request proof of professional installation and Gas Safe Certificates.

[Deleted User]

GervisLooper said:

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.

Aren't you living in the vehicle fulltime?

This would immediately breach the warranty terms.

Warranty does not apply if your product has been used for:

• commercial use
• hire or similar purpose
• trade
• permanent or temporary accommodation use of a maximum of 30 days per year

Items are warrantied for leisure use only.
It's pretty much a standard t&c in the leisure industry and widely discussed by people who are using their vehicles for extended periods. My point is, this is common knowledge within the 'vanlife' community and shouldn't come as a surprise...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:I also feel a S75 claim would be unsuccessful if you failed to follow the consumer rights act (and let them repair or replace the product). 

Whilst this is correct AFAIK there's no obligation for the consumer to seek a remedy from the retailer first so if someone opted to seek a remedy from the credit provider, whilst they'd still have to accept a repair/replacement, the credit provider is less likely to get involved with doing such meaning the final right to reject is less distant. 

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:I also feel a S75 claim would be unsuccessful if you failed to follow the consumer rights act (and let them repair or replace the product). 

Whilst this is correct AFAIK there's no obligation for the consumer to seek a remedy from the retailer first so if someone opted to seek a remedy from the credit provider, whilst they'd still have to accept a repair/replacement, the credit provider is less likely to get involved with doing such meaning the final right to reject is less distant. 

Part of the problem is that we tend to talk about s75 claims on this board from the point of view of a consumer raising "a dispute" directly with their bank or card provider.  Assuming the bank doesn't decide to treat it as a chargeback (which we know they will probably do by default) I think it quite likely that the bank's initial response to their customer will be along the lines of "What have you done to let the trader resolve this?"  I think that sort of response is fair enough where the consumer has approached their bank directly, but I wouldn't term that a s75 claim even if that is what the customer has said they wanted.

My understanding is that what s75 actually does is give the consumer the same legal claim against the card provider as they do against a trader in breach of contract (or the legislation), and the card provider and trader are both jointly and severally liable in law.

So a true s75 claim is where a consumer directly sues their card provider (with or without joining the trader) for the breach of contract, and I'd tend to agree with you that the consumer is not obliged first to seek a remedy from the trader.

(I think...)

Andy_L

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

GervisLooper said:

elsien said:

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

Indeed.

Does the 'must be installed by a professional' have any legal weight? A website can write anything on their site but doesn't necessarily make it legally binding. If I write must be installed by 2 middle aged leprechauns would that give me immunity if I sold something to someone and they didn't do follow it to the letter?

Also there is no regulatory body of van builders so I am not sure how they would prove professional or not especially since they do not say what type.

It reminds me of professional hypnotists with loads of "degrees" on their walls.

You would have to take that as a company that does this for as their business.

So just who did fit the cooker?

I would expect the stove to be fitted by a member of the NCC Approved Workshop Scheme, with the appropriate certificates for gas appliances.
Their membership is well into the hundreds, with businesses and mobile engineers all across the country.
In my (quite broad) experience, they're rarely even that expensive and have consistently given me good service.

This sounds like error during installation. The internet is full of similar tales....

From the Thermotechnica website

PLEASE NOTE: Gas appliances should only be signed off by a Gas Safe registered installer and in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Thermo Technica reserve the right to request proof of professional installation and Gas Safe Certificates.

It's not a gas stove though

ArbitraryRandom

born_again said:

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

Apologies, but I can't see a response to the questions in this post. 

It seems plausible the fit of the product with an irregular surface as described in that thread could lead to the hob moving more/being less secure than an item without this fault.  

If correct, and the OP accepted a discount because of the moulding issue/the issue is what caused it to break - then AFAIK they loose their consumer rights in relation to that issue. 

born_again

We still do not know who built this van.
If you watch some of the builds on U-tube they are very careful how everything is put together as the van body flexes a lot, but has to be tempered against the weight limit of the vans.

ArbitraryRandom

born_again said:

We still do not know who built this van.
If you watch some of the builds on U-tube they are very careful how everything is put together as the van body flexes a lot, but has to be tempered against the weight limit of the vans.

Agreed - it could be that there's no valid claim against the seller, but a valid claim against the mechanic/installer... but from the other thread it sounds like the OP at least cut the worksurface for the unit (which may be the most relevant element of the install)   

[Deleted User]

Andy_L said:

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

GervisLooper said:

elsien said:

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

Indeed.

Does the 'must be installed by a professional' have any legal weight? A website can write anything on their site but doesn't necessarily make it legally binding. If I write must be installed by 2 middle aged leprechauns would that give me immunity if I sold something to someone and they didn't do follow it to the letter?

Also there is no regulatory body of van builders so I am not sure how they would prove professional or not especially since they do not say what type.

It reminds me of professional hypnotists with loads of "degrees" on their walls.

You would have to take that as a company that does this for as their business.

So just who did fit the cooker?

I would expect the stove to be fitted by a member of the NCC Approved Workshop Scheme, with the appropriate certificates for gas appliances.
Their membership is well into the hundreds, with businesses and mobile engineers all across the country.
In my (quite broad) experience, they're rarely even that expensive and have consistently given me good service.

This sounds like error during installation. The internet is full of similar tales....

From the Thermotechnica website

PLEASE NOTE: Gas appliances should only be signed off by a Gas Safe registered installer and in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Thermo Technica reserve the right to request proof of professional installation and Gas Safe Certificates.

It's not a gas stove though

Valid point, Thermo Technica could have been clearer.

I would still want it installed by an AWS member, probably one who works with diesel appliances, Webasto or Eberspacher and has UKAS certification (diesel/oil stoves and heaters).
Failing that, a business in the boating community with same qualifications or perhaps even an OFTEC technician?

GervisLooper

Yes i did it myself, i followed the instruction manual to a t. I am very meticulous though I am sure some here 'know' i did it wrong.

I do understand the point though that regardless of how well it was done it can still be argued that since it wasn't done by a certified professional it could cause issues due to not being able to rule out user error.

Anyway that is by the by currently as the company are now completely ignoring me and have not replied since the message i posted last week, almost a week to the day when telling me to claim on insurance. Not the behaviour of a professional operation. It seems more like a bedroom dropshipping kind of setup with their lack of willingness to follow up on a technical issue.

I have since sent another telling them if they dont want to cooperate i will have to go via the debit chargeback route, which does have a drop down option for faulty goods. This too has not impelled them to reply.

The company seem to be hoping i will just give up. i think their lack of response will show in my favour to debit team as the seller has made no attempt to resolve it.