We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
£900 paid for stove for van has broken after a few weeks. Seller telling me to claim insurance
Comments
-
If you want help and advice then getting defensive isn't going to make things better...GervisLooper said:Regardless of what some here believe about my diy skills, yes i did it myself, i followed the instruction manual to a t. I am very meticulous though I am sure some her 'know' i did it wrong.
It's not about your DIY skills, it's about who you might have a claim against - if someone else installed the hob then that's a potential route to claim, if you installed the hob then that's a potential defence for the seller (and so highlights what you need to evidence before taking any further action).
- So, in that vein, can you please clarify if this the unit you previously received a discount on which had fault with the moulding?
- Can you also confirm if that fault meant you needed to make any adjustments as part of the installation for it to sit correctly (possibly deviating from the instruction manual to ensure a secure fit)?
- Is it possible the fault (with a modified installation or not) could have contributed to the product breaking? (The irregularity leading to uneven stresses/movement on the unit when you were driving)
And again, this has nothing to do with assigning blame or judgement - but if there's a chance the fault or your installation caused the problem then before you can progress to a letter before action/court, you may need to proactively prove it wasn't the cause of the failure (which would involve getting a professional out to look at the cooker/how it's fitted and writing a report to say the issue was unrelated to the previously identified flaw).I'm not an early bird or a night owl; I’m some form of permanently exhausted pigeon.2 -
ArbitraryRandom said:
If you want help and advice then getting defensive isn't going to make things better...GervisLooper said:Regardless of what some here believe about my diy skills, yes i did it myself, i followed the instruction manual to a t. I am very meticulous though I am sure some her 'know' i did it wrong.
It's not about your DIY skills, it's about who you might have a claim against - if someone else installed the hob then that's a potential route to claim, if you installed the hob then that's a potential defence for the seller (and so highlights what you need to evidence before taking any further action).
- So, in that vein, can you please clarify if this the unit you previously received a discount on which had fault with the moulding?
- Can you also confirm if that fault meant you needed to make any adjustments as part of the installation for it to sit correctly (possibly deviating from the instruction manual to ensure a secure fit)?
- Is it possible the fault (with a modified installation or not) could have contributed to the product breaking? (The irregularity leading to uneven stresses/movement on the unit when you were driving)
And again, this has nothing to do with assigning blame or judgement - but if there's a chance the fault or your installation caused the problem then before you can progress to a letter before action/court, you may need to proactively prove it wasn't the cause of the failure (which would involve getting a professional out to look at the cooker/how it's fitted and writing a report to say the issue was unrelated to the previously identified flaw).Was not directed to you. Others were saying they were adamant it was due to user error and the seller is thus in the right shaming me for having the temerity to make a claim, case closed open and shut.Indeed you make valid consideration I had not thought of.Answers yes, yes a bit since it didnt sit flush, third being honest probably not. i would not in good conscience try to play that angle up and exaggerate it because i dont feel it is related honestly. i prefer be fair and honest in my dealings. rather the diesel leaking fault would be a stronger one which i would wholeheartedly say was a fault and a danger due to carcinogenic fumes it would emit but again unrelated to the crack.I had aready mentioned the diesel smell issue to seller more than once and they fobbed me off each time saying it was just new cooker smell that would wear off.If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?0 -
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...0 -
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...I'm not an early bird or a night owl; I’m some form of permanently exhausted pigeon.0 -
Why on earth would they get an independent report? It's within the timescale that it's assumed the fault is inherent, and it's for the retailer to demonstrate otherwise. The OP wouldn't get the money back for an unnecessary report.ArbitraryRandom said:
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...1 -
They identified a fault with the product at time of purchase and negotiated a discount based on their acceptance of that fault... which means they lose any rights to claim for issues relating to that fault.ThumbRemote said:
Why on earth would they get an independent report? It's within the timescale that it's assumed the fault is inherent, and it's for the retailer to demonstrate otherwise. The OP wouldn't get the money back for an unnecessary report.ArbitraryRandom said:
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...
Should the case go to court (which if the OP does not want to claim on insurance and chargeback is contested is the remaining option), then proving the failure is not related to that fault could well be key to proving the seller's liability.I'm not an early bird or a night owl; I’m some form of permanently exhausted pigeon.3 -
Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...ArbitraryRandom said:
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...No idea where you both have got 30 days. It is 120 days and my card provider clearly provides the option to issue it for faulty goods. Also look at this article by our very own trusty mse.You typically have up to 120 days to get your claim in
The rules set by Visa, Mastercard and American Express only usually give you 120 days to get a claim in – and the clock usually starts ticking from the date of the payment, though it does depend on the type of situation. Here are some examples:
- Broken goods. You buy a bicycle and take it for a first spin two weeks later only to discover its brakes are faulty – and the retailer won't help sort it. The deadline starts from the date you bought it.
The above sounds well within the remit of my case.
I would be claiming based on the issue of cracked hob glass being a defect inherent due to lackluster product quality, as I mention nothing to do with the thing I got a discount for which I do not think is related, and there are posts online of others having had the same cracked stovetop issue, even with a professional install in at least one case, which shows it is not just an individual aberration and rather indicates lack of quality control or simply poor quality parts.
0 -
The (I actually think 45) days is the time the seller has to dispute your charge back (not the time you have to lodge the charge back, which is the 120) - it's not as simple as you ask for a charge back and get it, you might even get a refund then find it's taken back from you with no notice.GervisLooper said:Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...ArbitraryRandom said:
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...No idea where you both have got 30 days. It is 120 days and my card provider clearly provides the option to issue it for faulty goods. Also look at this article by our very own trusty mse.
And while I understand you do not think the fault is related, if they use it as a defence (that you knew it was faulty and accepted the fault in return for a discount) then you may need to prove you are correct.I'm not an early bird or a night owl; I’m some form of permanently exhausted pigeon.1 -
Once again, they do not have to prove the sellers liability. The seller has to prove they are NOT liable. Since the seller is refusing to look at the item or even communicate, they remain liable.ArbitraryRandom said:
They identified a fault with the product at time of purchase and negotiated a discount based on their acceptance of that fault... which means they lose any rights to claim for issues relating to that fault.ThumbRemote said:
Why on earth would they get an independent report? It's within the timescale that it's assumed the fault is inherent, and it's for the retailer to demonstrate otherwise. The OP wouldn't get the money back for an unnecessary report.ArbitraryRandom said:
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...
Should the case go to court (which if the OP does not want to claim on insurance and chargeback is contested is the remaining option), then proving the failure is not related to that fault could well be key to proving the seller's liability.
As an aside, I suspect any court would look quite favourably on any purchaser who accepted what they thought was a cosmetic fault, received a discount accordingly, and subsequently found that the fault was much more than cosmetic. The retailer is expected to be the expert, not the customer. So if, for example, a customer received a dented fridge and got a discount for it, then subsequently found the dent was affecting the compressor which failed early, I'd expect the customer to receive a refund still - they accepted a refund based on a cosmetic issue, not a functional issue.1 -
The seller is only liable for issues unrelated to a fault known and accepted at time of purchase - So the seller doesn't need to inspect if they claim the cause was the known fault for which they have no liability (all they have to prove is that there was a fault and that it was known/accepted by the OP).ThumbRemote said:
Once again, they do not have to prove the sellers liability. The seller has to prove they are NOT liable. Since the seller is refusing to look at the item or even communicate, they remain liable.ArbitraryRandom said:
They identified a fault with the product at time of purchase and negotiated a discount based on their acceptance of that fault... which means they lose any rights to claim for issues relating to that fault.ThumbRemote said:
Why on earth would they get an independent report? It's within the timescale that it's assumed the fault is inherent, and it's for the retailer to demonstrate otherwise. The OP wouldn't get the money back for an unnecessary report.ArbitraryRandom said:
Agreed, which is why an independent report determining the cause of the breakage might be key (and if it's the OP's favour they can reclaim the cost).Okell said:
I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?GervisLooper said:... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?
Yes you can try a chargeback, but my understanding is that the trader has a period (30 days?) in which to challenge it and that banks will generally refuse a chargeback if the trader does challenge it. Sounds to me odds on that this trader will definitely challenge any chargeback attempt.
A chargeback ( or even a s75 claim) is not a magic bullet if you don't have a strong case in the first place...
Chargeback doesn't cost anything (but takes a little time) and when the company defend at least the OP will have an idea of their defence.
After that, if they still don't want to involve their insurance and feel they have a strong case/sufficient evidence, then they could go for a LBA...
Should the case go to court (which if the OP does not want to claim on insurance and chargeback is contested is the remaining option), then proving the failure is not related to that fault could well be key to proving the seller's liability.
As an aside, I suspect any court would look quite favourably on any purchaser who accepted what they thought was a cosmetic fault, received a discount accordingly, and subsequently found that the fault was much more than cosmetic. The retailer is expected to be the expert, not the customer. So if, for example, a customer received a dented fridge and got a discount for it, then subsequently found the dent was affecting the compressor which failed early, I'd expect the customer to receive a refund still - they accepted a refund based on a cosmetic issue, not a functional issue.
According to the previous thread, they were offered £75 as a 'cosmetic fault' but argued it was more significant and negotiated a several hundred pound discount... and according to their own account had to make modifications to the installation process to ensure a secure fit - so clearly an avenue for the seller to argue the non-standard installation and existing/accepted fault caused the failure.I'm not an early bird or a night owl; I’m some form of permanently exhausted pigeon.5
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards