Responsibilities of manufacturer, retailer and credit card company.

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

 RefluentBeans said:

you can’t argue to AO on Hisense’s descriptions 

You could in terms of satisfactory quality  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

(6)That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling.

(7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—

(a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or

(c)the consumer's decision to contract for the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.

It's fair to say information on a public website is something the trader would have reasonably been aware of. 

The argument I’m saying is that it’s just easier to use only the retailers website. For example - if AO knows that the frost free is just a lie from the manufacturer and doesn’t include it in their marketing materials then I think you’ll have a lot tougher time. Retailers can’t be held for what third parties have on their sites; and what third parties have on their sites certainly can’t form art of the contract in the same way that marketing materials from the retailer can. 

My point is that the OP is spending a lot of time with Hisense. Hisense has a warranty obligation. I’m sure if they press hard enough they will send out a junior engineer to defrost the unit; but that wouldn’t count as a repair for the terms of CRA; and it’s unlikely that the OP would be able to get much more than that through the warranty. For that reason; the OP should spend their time talking to AO only, and use their (AO’s) marketing materials and either saying the product is faulty (as AO claims you’ll never have to do a defrost again but that is exactly what the OP is being told to do); or asking for AO to repair in order to allow the OP to have the final right to reject if another issue comes up again. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

 RefluentBeans said:

you can’t argue to AO on Hisense’s descriptions 

You could in terms of satisfactory quality  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

(6)That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling.

(7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—

(a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or

(c)the consumer's decision to contract for the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.

It's fair to say information on a public website is something the trader would have reasonably been aware of. 

 Retailers can’t be held for what third parties have on their sites

Well the above says they can  

I don't see why you'd have any tougher time with that aspect of the CRA than any other, either the trader accepts their obligations or they don't. 

If they are going down the road of casing AO and the wording on the manufacturer website assists OP's position it would be wise to use it. That assumes you could argue the issue is one of satisfactory quality (the clause doesn't apply to as described). 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

 RefluentBeans said:

you can’t argue to AO on Hisense’s descriptions 

You could in terms of satisfactory quality  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

(6)That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling.

(7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—

(a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or

(c)the consumer's decision to contract for the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.

It's fair to say information on a public website is something the trader would have reasonably been aware of. 

 Retailers can’t be held for what third parties have on their sites

Well the above says they can  

I don't see why you'd have any tougher time with that aspect of the CRA than any other, either the trader accepts their obligations or they don't. 

If they are going down the road of casing AO and the wording on the manufacturer website assists OP's position it would be wise to use it. That assumes you could argue the issue is one of satisfactory quality (the clause doesn't apply to as described). 

I don’t think it would be wise to use 3rd party websites to prove your case. The OP has evidence of how AO markets the product. These claims are at least not entirely truthful, as they require defrosting. 

We won’t agree on this. No point arguing, especially as the OP is still active and engaged in discussions and don’t want to derail the discussion. So I will not be responding unless the OP requires further on this. 

aroominyork

Well, it’s an interesting discussion! My view is this comes down to contract law. I have no contract with Hisense and I’ve little doubt they will bide their time until the warranty expires and then wash their hands of me. Much better is to focus on ao.com with who I do have a contract and who misrepresented the product.

I think the best course of action is to call ao.com, point them to the claim on their website and make it clear I hold them, rather than Hisense, responsible, and take the discussion back to the start. If they want me to run a manual defrost I will, but I want that to be on their instruction rather than on Hinsense’s instruction; that way, if it does not fix the problem or the problem recurs, I can more easily hold them responsible.

photome

This is interesting, I would have the same thoughts as the OP. I have a frost free American style fridge freezer, it’s about 6 years old ( logik brand). I have never had to defrost it and would be disappointed if I had to but at least understand now why I might have to

RefluentBeans

aroominyork said:

Well, it’s an interesting discussion! My view is this comes down to contract law. I have no contract with Hisense and I’ve little doubt they will bide their time until the warranty expires and then wash their hands of me. Much better is to focus on ao.com with who I do have a contract and who misrepresented the product.

I think the best course of action is to call ao.com, point them to the claim on their website and make it clear I hold them, rather than Hisense, responsible, and take the discussion back to the start. If they want me to run a manual defrost I will, but I want that to be on their instruction rather than on Hinsense’s instruction; that way, if it does not fix the problem or the problem recurs, I can more easily hold them responsible.

I agree - I think there’s a difference between never having to defrost the appliance and reducing it to every 12-24 months, as part of a regular maintenance cycle. The latter is fine, but they (AO) haven’t advertised it as that; and so I think it isn’t meeting the description. Be sure to record the video/get a transcript of it so if the video does suddenly get lost, you can have something to point to. 

You may be able to use Hisense’s website too. Lunatic clearly thinks so. I think it’ll be an uphill battle, and would only be decided in court to what extent a retailer can be held by third party websites (even manufacturers) - and you don’t really want to have to get it court to get an answer. It’s stressful, and time consuming. Ideally you want AO to fix it themselves through their complaints process. 

aroominyork

The question is what I want from ao.com. The appliance has already had two service calls for a faulty door. I don’t know whether that, combined with the ice, suggests the appliance might be prone to repeated faults.

It would be unreasonable not to run a manual defrost, but I am nervous that the fault recurs and each time they say “you must have left the door open my mistake”. How do we break that cycle, and at what stage can I reasonably demand a replacement/a new model paying any price difference/a refund? Also, if I am holding (or trying to hold) ao.com responsible, does the two year warranty period act as a cut off for any responsibility on their part?

RefluentBeans

aroominyork said:

The question is what I want from ao.com. The appliance has already had two service calls for a faulty door. I don’t know whether that, combined with the ice, suggests the appliance might be prone to repeated faults.

It would be unreasonable not to run a manual defrost, but I am nervous that the fault recurs and each time they say “you must have left the door open my mistake”. How do we break that cycle, and at what stage can I reasonably demand a replacement/a new model paying any price difference/a refund? Also, if I am holding (or trying to hold) ao.com responsible, does the two year warranty period act as a cut off for any responsibility on their part?

Who repaired the previous faults? Was it Hisense (through their warranty) or was it through AO (through the obligations under CRA?). If the latter (not through any warranty but rather the CRA) then I think you’ll at least have the final right to reject as a negotiating tool (less any usage, normally a linear decline assuming a 5-6 year lifespan). 

Ultimately, the product must be as described. Some faults don’t show up until quite late in the purchase (after months of usage - for example you probably wouldn’t have noticed this issue in the first 30 days let alone first 12 months). 

AO can have the legal right to ask for an engineering fault to confirm that the product is faulty - and not through mis use/user error. I think you’ll struggle on this point - an engineer is going to mirror what the above comments say of ‘there are no such things as ice less cooling units, so frost free is just a marketing device and defrosts are still recommended’. You have got direct evidence that says AO claims that you never need to defrost your appliance again. That, to me, goes past the Frost Free (which is likely just a marketing device - in the same way ‘Red Bull gives you Wings’ or ‘best pizza in town’). To me ‘never defrost your appliance’ is not a marketing device and is a claim in the same way that ‘contains a wine rack’ implies that there isn’t just the milk shelf! 

If AO asks for an engineers report, I think you’ll struggle to get an engineer to agree with you, and I think that AO will keep asking for that report. The next step in this case would be letter before action, followed by a small claims court claim. I think you’ll have more luck with that in court than getting AO to agree to it, but your claim needs to be considered and carefully laid out. 

As for if AO does repair it, and the warranty ends, they have a legal obligation under CRA which ends after 6 years from delivery. So they can’t just say ‘no warranty, not our issue’ (but they l may well try!). Same advice in this case - follow through saying you’re claiming under CRA. If they play ball, great. But they may ask for an engineers report to confirm fault. If they reject the fault, complain, followed by a letter before claim (if complaining doesn’t work) followed by Small Claims. 

As a caveat because I didn’t include it - the CRA assumes a reverse burden of proof for the first 6 months meaning the retailer has to prove the product was functional when purchased. After this time it reverts back to you proving it’s faulty. You can also claim the cost of the engineer report back if it supports you. This advice is based on England (and I think Wales) but think it also works generally for Scotland (just 5 years not 6) and the acts and courts are slightly different. 

aroominyork

I spoke with ao.com who went away to talk with Hisense. Hinsense told them ice can build up if, eg, the door is left open or the vents blocked. If a defrost does not fix it they will send an engineer. Apparently they did not push the 'defrost twice a year' line. That is all reasonable; of course it's possible I left the door ajar. 

I asked ao.com what happens if it happens periodically and recurs soon after the appliance is out of warranty. They said there are three options:

- get an engineer out to run diagnostics; they might contribute to the cost

- receive a depreciated refund based on time owned and assuming a six year lifespan (ie CRA related)

- 'Repair and care'; something similar to the first option but with a 12 month post-repair warranty.

I don't see I can take this any further now; it's time to run down the freezer contents, do a defrost and see what happens.