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

RefluentBeans

ArbitraryRandom said:

ThumbRemote said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

ThumbRemote said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Okell said:

GervisLooper said:

... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?

I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?

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...

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). 

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... 

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. 

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. 

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.  

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. 

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. 

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).

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. 

Also worth pointing out that the overwhelming response in that thread was to just return and get a new one as accepting a discount for damage is going to weaken the strength of any future issues. Low and behold - here we are. 

Ultimately OP, you need to clarify from them why they don’t feel the fault is their issue, as this dictates what you do next. If they say that the fault isn’t actually a fault, and was damaged by the installer and you should contact the installer to repair it, you’ll need to attempt to show you followed the instructions (and deviations to make it fit). If they claim the existing known fault of the product has caused this apparent fault and they are one and the same fault, then you’ll need to show that the faults are two distinct faults, or at least not of the same parent fault. 

Ultimately, I don’t know how successful a chargeback will be. Chargebacks are extrajudicial meaning they have no legal basis (unlike a court). This means that if both sides present a plausible argument then the norm is to keep the status quo, as they do not really review evidence and make judgements. A court on the other hand is your legal right. Chargebacks are relatively easy to apply for, and relatively quick. Court cases have a cost to them and can take a while to get moving. But the court will look at the balance of probabilities. Without knowing the actual case, and both parties claims and arguments it’s impossible to say which way it could go. 

The alternative is to claim on your insurance, and let the insurance worry about how to get the money back/if they get the money back. It’s up to you whether you want to want to go to court or not. For £900, I can see why you would. But it can take a while for the process to go on. 

ArbitraryRandom

RefluentBeans said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

ThumbRemote said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

ThumbRemote said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Okell said:

GervisLooper said:

... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?

I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?

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...

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). 

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... 

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. 

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. 

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.  

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. 

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. 

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).

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. 

But the court will look at the balance of probabilities. Without knowing the actual case, and both parties claims and arguments it’s impossible to say which way it could go. 

Agreed, and I'm not suggesting things will go that way - just that it MAY be important and I would hate if the a case was found against the OP because the court felt on balance of probabilities the fault/install could have contributed and the OP couldn't prove otherwise because they had boxed up the part to send back/replaced it and installed a new part assuming it would be okay. 

born_again

GervisLooper said:GervisLooper said:

... If they arent responding then it seems debit card route is the way to go next no?

I'm not sure a debit card chargeback is going to work for you in this situation?

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...

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). 

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.

typically 

Is the word to take note of...
NOT YOU HAVE..

As I said there is no chargeback for something that has developed a fault over time.

See the bottom of every page...

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

Okell

GervisLooper said:

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.

[Sigh...]  If you bother to read it properly you will realise 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... " is not referring to the period in which you have to make a claim.

It is referring to (1) the period* in which the trader can challenge any chargeback awarded by your bank, and (2) what appears to be the general practice of banks to accept challenges by traders as a matter of course - no questions asked. 

That's why I'm not as confident as you are that a chargeback will succeed - I'm pretty certain the trader will challenge it.  And even if you did win a chargeback the trader might try to win the money back from you through the courts.

[Edit:  plus born_again who I think knows a bit about chargebacks is saying a chargeback wouldn't apply in your case anyway...]


*Apparently it might be 45 days rather than 30 days.  I wasn't certain how many days it was and that's why I put a "?" after 30 days.

Okell

@ThumbRemote -  if you read my first post on this thread from 03 February you will see that I was of the same opinion as you.  Failure within 6 months - OP need prove nothing.

However, after I'd been directed to and had read the original thread I wasn't so sure.  By originally negotiating a significant discount on the item because of a visible fault, the OP has muddied the water somewhat.

I'm not 100% certain that by negotiating the discount the OP has necessarily negotiated away their rights under the CRA, but if the trader can throw any blame at all on the visible fault as a possible cause of the OP's present problems, then the OP is obviously in a weaker position than if they hadn't tried to get the price knocked down in the first place.

Regardless of the failure having been within 6 months, if I were the OP I'd be happier if I had some independent report or evidence establishing that the current fault is probably unrelated (1) to the original visible defect, and (2) to however it was installed.

As I say, I'm not convinced that the OP does not have a good case under the CRA but I think they have made it more complicated for themselves.  By accepting a lower price in return for ignoring that the item was faulty, but then complaining that the item is faulty (whether the two faults are related or not) gives the unfortunate impression that the OP wants to have their cake and to eat it.  While there is no concept of "acceptance" under current consumer law it does look as if the OP wants to have it both ways - and I'm not sure a court would look sympathetically on it.

Hence I don't think it would do the OP any harm at all to get independent evidence to support their case

ArbitraryRandom

Okell said:

 While there is no concept of "acceptance" under current consumer law...

Apologies for my loose language, but I've been passingly referring to 9(4)(a), 19(2), 20(4), and 24(5)

i.e. I'm not sure if the partial refund they've already had (under 24(5)) precludes further remedy, or if the process starts right back at the beginning with the fault disregarded for the purposes of 9(4)(a)... 

Okell

ArbitraryRandom said:

Okell said:

 While there is no concept of "acceptance" under current consumer law...

Apologies for my loose language, but I've been passingly referring to 9(4)(a), 19(2), 20(4), and 24(5)

i.e. I'm not sure if the partial refund they've already had (under 24(5)) precludes further remedy, or if the process starts right back at the beginning with the fault disregarded for the purposes of 9(4)(a)... 

Sorry - wasn't intending to criticise your use of the word "acceptance" which I think is reasonable* here!

I know what you mean.  The OP has entered into a bargain with the trader to pay a lower price in return for accepting a bit of kit that was damaged/faulty.  Because the OP freely entered into that bargain knowing what he was doing, it seems to me entirely possible for the trader to argue either (1) that that bargain stands outside the CRA and isn't covered by its provisions, or (2) the OP has freely opted for a price reduction under the CRA rather than replacement or repair.

Whether that view is right or not I don't know.  But I can't help feeling that by "accepting" a partial refund the OP may have thereby compromised their position under the CRA and that they need some independent evidence to bolster their argument.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

I'm not 100% certain that by negotiating the discount the OP has necessarily negotiated away their rights under the CRA

This is always something I've wondered about, let's say for argument's sake OP exercised the right to price reduction under S24, the way the regs are written implies both the final right to reject and a price reduction are a final remedy as far the CRA goes.

Now of course if you buy a fridge that has a dent accept, £20 for a cosmetic issue and then find the dent is causing a further, originally unknown, issue I think most people would want another remedy. 

As ThumbRemote correctly says the trader is the expert so on the one hand the way the regs are written are against the OP but on the other the trader should have known the original issue may have been more complex and instead fulfilled their obligation to repair or replace. 

I agree a "report" helps the OP but I think the question is whether the CRA still applies (if it does burden of proof is on the trader) or is it a case of damages in which case AFAIK burden of proof falls on the party making the claim. 

A third option may be OP hasn't exercised any rights under the CRA yet and the part refund was just an agreement, how such things are viewed by a court I don't know, the CCRs for example require a clear statement, if consumers aren't making clear statements with regard to the CRA are they exercising any rights? One may say yes but then companies pushing their policies over rights may say no. 

Okell

Has the OP actually had two refunds on this already?

Original price was £1125 on which the OP accepted a £75 refund because of the moulding fault - or whatever it was.

So did the OP go back for a second refund of £150, giving a total of £225 refund already?

Also I'm still not clear on what the current fault is that the OP is complaining about...

[Edit:  Does it come down to this?  "... 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..."

I can see the trader arguing that it's accidental damage or misuse...]

LightFlare

Okell said:

Has the OP actually had two refunds on this already?

Original price was £1125 on which the OP accepted a £75 refund because of the moulding fault - or whatever it was.

So did the OP go back for a second refund of £150, giving a total of £225 refund already?

Also I'm still not clear on what the current fault is that the OP is complaining about...

The ceramic cook top that apparently broke after 7 hours or driving around on uneven roads with potholes (in the OP)