Claiming incurred and excess costs from faulty heat exchanger

Nightporter

We purchased a stainless steel heat exchanger on 1st June 2023 for our swimming pool system.

On restarting up the system in May this year, part of the heat exchanger has several pin holes around one of the connections.

I contacted the firm we purchased it from and they said we would need to replace it in order for them to check if the part was faulty or not.

In order to do so we need to employ a plumber. After speaking to their sales team and the plumber, the quickest and cheapest option was to purchase a new heat exchanger and ask the plumber to come one to take out the old and fit the replacement; saving a second £60 call out fee.

Old heat exchanger was returned and confirmed as being faulty by the supplier.

I have spend £401.99 for the new heat exchanger (27% increase in a year), £60 on the plumber services and £22 to return the product.

The supplier has only offered to refund the £314.99 for the original part and my transport cost for the return. 

Their exact reply was:

"unfortunately because you decided to get a new unit before returning the faulty unit  the new unit is classed as a new sale, Order #63033 on the plus side to this is the warranty on the new unit is from the new purchase date 

but the item returned under warranty is done from the original order  Order #47723  

and unfortunately we don't cover any Remedial works that are required to swap units out. I will however reimburse you for the postage even though that seems a little excessive for a return of a small item. "

My query is had the original product not been faulty, I wouldn't have had to purchase a new item, nor employ the services of the plumber. Do I have any rights to get the excess money back - I'm currently £147 out of pocket because of their faulty product.

Thank you for any advice.

HillStreetBlues

I have to say it make no sense.
All they have to do is cancel the sale of the one you bought recently and refund that money, then it won't be a new sale.
 

Aylesbury_Duck

Just checking you are a consumer and not a business, which may affect your rights in this situation?

DullGreyGuy

Did you agree this approach with them before doing it? As above, I'm going to assume you are a consumer and not a business. 

They are stating you are claiming under their warranty, the terms of that are free to say whatever they want in terms of repairs/replacements/refunds etc and if they cover fitting or not etc. 

If you are a consumer then you can claim under the Consumer Rights Act instead of the warranty however this gives THEM the choice of repair, replace or refund, you can express a preference but they are free to chose another resolution if its materially cheaper for them. If a refund is given it will be based on the original purchase prices less an amount to represent use you had before the fault. You can add damages on top of that (eg fitting). 

You've prejudiced matters by deciding to replace it already at your own expense. They'd be perfectly entitled to just repair your old one and send it back to you and it'll be your problem that you now have two. As such a full refund of the original purchase price with no discount for use is a fairly good outcome, its up to you if you risk pushing it and they ultimate go back to exact warranty terms or consumer rights and just send your returned item back fixed

Nightporter

Thanks all. Yes, I am a consumer not a business. 
Had the same part been the same cost as June 2023 and not gone up by 27% in 11 months, effectively the £60 I paid the plumber would have given me a new start date for the warranty/purchase date.

Had I taken the old part out first (another £60 plumber cost), sent that back to find it was faulty, and the firm sent a new replacement as no additional cost, would I have then been able to reclaim £120 in plumber fees.
Is there any difference because I was trying to limit the cost of the refit?

cannugec5

what is what is the life expectancy of this part that you have had for a year? 

I would certainly be expecting the refund to reflect a year’s usage, and therefore reduced by an appropriate percentage. 

Nightporter

The previous heat exchanger last 6 or 7 years. This one under 10 months. TBF the supplier have confirmed they would refund the failed item but the initial cost (£314.99) not the new one at £401.99.
Also not covering the cost of the plumber. The difference in item cost and the plumber fee is what I querying if I can claim back from the supplier.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

It's a bit of mess really, the retailer can examine the goods to confirm a fault and had you allowed them to do so and they replaced you'd be entitled to the reasonable costs of the replacement, of which the regs specifically mention labour, two lots of plumber calls outs would have been no problem. 

Part of the issue is you've effectively not had a remedy of a replacement but have rejected the faulty item.

As it was over 6 months they could have reduced the refund to account for use, so £315 / 7 years is £45. 

The other part of the issue is, again as over 6 months, the retailer could have requested you show it was faulty, which they would have had to pay for the costs of doing so as it was indeed faulty however it did save some headache going about it this way. 

With them covering the postage costs it seems you are out £102 (402-315-45+60), so same as your calculation missed the benefit of use  

You might be able to claim the cost of the plumber as damages but I'm not so sure about the price increase due to the way you allowed this to play out* and if you ignore the price increase and look at the plumber minus use you are £15 out which isn't much to chase when considering the headache.

*I don't mean for this to suggest you did something wrong, in fact it seems you was trying to be pragmatic, just in this case it wasn't necessarily the best way to go about it  

DullGreyGuy

Nightporter said:

Thanks all. Yes, I am a consumer not a business. 
Had the same part been the same cost as June 2023 and not gone up by 27% in 11 months, effectively the £60 I paid the plumber would have given me a new start date for the warranty/purchase date.

Had I taken the old part out first (another £60 plumber cost), sent that back to find it was faulty, and the firm sent a new replacement as no additional cost, would I have then been able to reclaim £120 in plumber fees.
Is there any difference because I was trying to limit the cost of the refit?

If you were claiming it under the CRA rather than the warranty then the plumbing costs to remove it could have been included. Cost of refitting would also have been covered if they'd chosen to replace or repair it. If they'd refunded instead, which could have been reduced for use received to date then obvs there is no refit cost

Nightporter

Thanks for all the replies. I needed the swimming pool up and running by 8th June for a 21st birthday party so time was really against me. We only just got is ready in time with the scenario above. 
Doing it the 'right' way by sending the faulty item back first would have meant no having the pool ready. For that I guess, paying the extra £100+ for happy kids is possibly worth the price.