Faulty Goods / Associated Damage

Bouncy_Kangaroo

Hello, looking for some advice. I purchased an integrated dishwasher, with installation.
The kitchen cupboard doors for that have warped and swollen since it was installed but were fine prior (where a dishwasher was in place for years)
Company purchased from has sent out multiple teams of engineers, and all have confirmed there is no problem

Contacted manufacturer and they have sent someone out and fitted a "condensation repair kit" 

I have since gone back to the retailer as I believe this is evidence that the dishwasher was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose under consumer rights law. Company purchased from have now agreed to replace dishwasher with an equivalent model but will not accept liability for the damage that the product has caused.

To make matters worse, the kitchen doors are no longer available for purchase - so to replace the two that are damaged will likely require all doors to be replaced, clearly at significant cost

Anyone come up against a similar situation before and have any advice? I understand if this goes to SCC that I would need to demonstrate the costs to repair are kept to a minimum. I can't see how I can reduce them any further? I also can't see how the retailer thinks this isn't their issue to deal with. 

Aylesbury_Duck

Bouncy_Kangaroo said:

Hello, looking for some advice. I purchased an integrated dishwasher, with installation.
The kitchen cupboard doors for that have warped and swollen since it was installed but were fine prior (where a dishwasher was in place for years)
Company purchased from has sent out multiple teams of engineers, and all have confirmed there is no problem

Contacted manufacturer and they have sent someone out and fitted a "condensation repair kit" 

I have since gone back to the retailer as I believe this is evidence that the dishwasher was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose under consumer rights law. Company purchased from have now agreed to replace dishwasher with an equivalent model but will not accept liability for the damage that the product has caused.

To make matters worse, the kitchen doors are no longer available for purchase - so to replace the two that are damaged will likely require all doors to be replaced, clearly at significant cost

Anyone come up against a similar situation before and have any advice? I understand if this goes to SCC that I would need to demonstrate the costs to repair are kept to a minimum. I can't see how I can reduce them any further? I also can't see how the retailer thinks this isn't their issue to deal with. 

These kits are usually just an adhesive strip of foil that goes on the underside of the worktop, to protect it from steam and condensation.  If the cupboard doors either side of the unit have warped, that suggests the actual door seal on the dishwasher isn't working properly.  What is damaged and where is it located?  You'll probably need to establish the exact cause of the warping before the retailer will agree to cover the associated costs.

You probably won't need to replace all the doors.  There are companies that hold old stock, and there are also businesses that will make replicas.  Even if it was impossible to find or make two replacements, you'd be entitled to a contribution to replacing all the doors and not necessarily a brand new set of doors, because that would be betterment.  How old is the kitchen?  

DullGreyGuy

Bouncy_Kangaroo said:

To make matters worse, the kitchen doors are no longer available for purchase - so to replace the two that are damaged will likely require all doors to be replaced, clearly at significant cost

Anyone come up against a similar situation before and have any advice? I understand if this goes to SCC that I would need to demonstrate the costs to repair are kept to a minimum. I can't see how I can reduce them any further? I also can't see how the retailer thinks this isn't their issue to deal with. 

The courts consider many things when deciding what damages are due, what acts of mitigation you've made, ensure that there is no betterment and just an all round reasonableness. If you take time looking at legal judgements some of them are a little surprising... a person commissioned a swimming pool to be built and it was a few inches shallower than the contract stated, they tried to claim the cost of digging the pool deeper but the judge decided it was unreasonable and instead made a much smaller award for loss of amenities 

As most my work was Motor didnt have to deal with many "sets" questions when dealing with liability, did a couple of times with jewellery and there succesfully argued the "matching neckless" retained its original value without the matching earring that had been lost in the RTA and so only settled for the lost item. The common one we did have was demolished walls/fences but thats easier to argue that the new one will age and start to match the old ones over time. 

Someone who has more experience in PL claims would have a better idea of how courts view 2 damaged doors... my guess would be the value of the two doors and a modest payment for those doors not matching the others rather than replacing all doors. 

Bouncy_Kangaroo

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Bouncy_Kangaroo said:

Hello, looking for some advice. I purchased an integrated dishwasher, with installation.
The kitchen cupboard doors for that have warped and swollen since it was installed but were fine prior (where a dishwasher was in place for years)
Company purchased from has sent out multiple teams of engineers, and all have confirmed there is no problem

Contacted manufacturer and they have sent someone out and fitted a "condensation repair kit" 

I have since gone back to the retailer as I believe this is evidence that the dishwasher was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose under consumer rights law. Company purchased from have now agreed to replace dishwasher with an equivalent model but will not accept liability for the damage that the product has caused.

To make matters worse, the kitchen doors are no longer available for purchase - so to replace the two that are damaged will likely require all doors to be replaced, clearly at significant cost

Anyone come up against a similar situation before and have any advice? I understand if this goes to SCC that I would need to demonstrate the costs to repair are kept to a minimum. I can't see how I can reduce them any further? I also can't see how the retailer thinks this isn't their issue to deal with. 

These kits are usually just an adhesive strip of foil that goes on the underside of the worktop, to protect it from steam and condensation.  If the cupboard doors either side of the unit have warped, that suggests the actual door seal on the dishwasher isn't working properly.  What is damaged and where is it located?  You'll probably need to establish the exact cause of the warping before the retailer will agree to cover the associated costs.

You probably won't need to replace all the doors.  There are companies that hold old stock, and there are also businesses that will make replicas.  Even if it was impossible to find or make two replacements, you'd be entitled to a contribution to replacing all the doors and not necessarily a brand new set of doors, because that would be betterment.  How old is the kitchen?  

Repair kit consisted of a new/enhanced door seal and wasn’t the foil you mentioned. 

Kitchen is probably around 8-10 years old, fitted by previous owner. It’s imported from a foreign manufacturer who no longer make the same variant, I’ve tried. No joy with anyone holding stock either - being imported makes this harder to track down also.  I’d be open to looking at a replica but haven’t found a company that offer this. If you’re aware of any I’d genuinely appreciate the suggestion. It’s obviously not just doors, side panels etc would all theoretically need to be done too if they were to remain matching. I agree on the point re betterment but kind of expect to be put back into the position I would have been in prior to the damage. Doesn’t feel an unreasonable expectation but hence asking here for opinions from those more experienced to see if that is an unreasonable ask. 

Bouncy_Kangaroo

DullGreyGuy said:

Bouncy_Kangaroo said:

To make matters worse, the kitchen doors are no longer available for purchase - so to replace the two that are damaged will likely require all doors to be replaced, clearly at significant cost

Anyone come up against a similar situation before and have any advice? I understand if this goes to SCC that I would need to demonstrate the costs to repair are kept to a minimum. I can't see how I can reduce them any further? I also can't see how the retailer thinks this isn't their issue to deal with. 

The courts consider many things when deciding what damages are due, what acts of mitigation you've made, ensure that there is no betterment and just an all round reasonableness. If you take time looking at legal judgements some of them are a little surprising... a person commissioned a swimming pool to be built and it was a few inches shallower than the contract stated, they tried to claim the cost of digging the pool deeper but the judge decided it was unreasonable and instead made a much smaller award for loss of amenities 

As most my work was Motor didnt have to deal with many "sets" questions when dealing with liability, did a couple of times with jewellery and there succesfully argued the "matching neckless" retained its original value without the matching earring that had been lost in the RTA and so only settled for the lost item. The common one we did have was demolished walls/fences but thats easier to argue that the new one will age and start to match the old ones over time. 

Someone who has more experience in PL claims would have a better idea of how courts view 2 damaged doors... my guess would be the value of the two doors and a modest payment for those doors not matching the others rather than replacing all doors. 

Really interesting example there with the swimming pool and I agree not what you’d necessarily expect. Good point re other judgements I will see if I can research these online to get a better feel for it. When you say a modest payment for the doors not matching the others, do you effectively mean like a very small goodwill gesture? Putting a value on the doors seems to be proving difficult. The thing I find frustrating about all of this is the onus is on the person that has been inconvenienced through no fault of their own to gather all this info and justify it but I suppose the retailer would argue they shouldn’t have to defend things by default either. 

Bouncy_Kangaroo

Think I’ve found a firm that does repair work - going to see what the pricing looks like. Thanks for the suggestion.