'Unrepairable' 3 and a half year old heat LG pump tumble dryer

ajc269

Our LG heat pump dryer which cost £950 in December 2020 stopped heating in May. We booked a repair through LG's website to be carried out by their authorised service agent Pacifica. The first engineer decided a new PCB was needed and this took weeks to arrive. The scound engineer fitted it but it did not fixthe problem and it was clear that this engineer had never seen a heat pumpdryer before and had no ides how they operated. He ordered another part and a further visit was scheduled. Pacifica then phoned up and said the part wasn't availble and they were cancelling the repair and refunding the repair cost. So we are now left with a non-working very expensive tumble dryer and no means of getting it repaired. I raised the issue with LG over a week ago and they said it would be escalated to management but I've had no response. Surely this device cannot be considered to be of merchantable quality if it is unrepairable after only just over three years. Do I have any rights under Consumer Legislation.

born_again

Who did you purchase it from?

GrumpyDil

Possibly but any consumer rights would be against the seller. 

ajc269

The retailer was AO.

Phoenix72

ajc269 said:

The retailer was AO.

Then you need to speak to them not LG

ajc269

AO are not intetrested. Said that it  is LG's problem that spares can't be supplied for a very recent model.

Aylesbury_Duck

ajc269 said:

AO are not intetrested. Said that it  is LG's problem that spares can't be supplied for a very recent model.

They will perhaps be more interested if you tell them you want to exercise your rights under the Consumer Rights Act.  They can't just avoid their obligations.

However, what they are allowed to do is to ask you to ascertain that the fault is inherent, and not a result of excessive wear or misuse.  You'll need to get a white goods person to inspect it and give you a report.  

Okell

Aylesbury_Duck said:

ajc269 said:

AO are not intetrested. Said that it  is LG's problem that spares can't be supplied for a very recent model.

They will perhaps be more interested if you tell them you want to exercise your rights under the Consumer Rights Act.  They can't just avoid their obligations.

However, what they are allowed to do is to ask you to ascertain that the fault is inherent, and not a result of excessive wear or misuse.  You'll need to get a white goods person to inspect it and give you a report.  

It's a pity that so many people who might have better and more easily enforceable rights under consumer protection legislation decide to try to exercise rights under manufacturer's warranties rather than exercise their statutory rights

Alderbank

Okell said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

ajc269 said:

AO are not intetrested. Said that it  is LG's problem that spares can't be supplied for a very recent model.

They will perhaps be more interested if you tell them you want to exercise your rights under the Consumer Rights Act.  They can't just avoid their obligations.

However, what they are allowed to do is to ask you to ascertain that the fault is inherent, and not a result of excessive wear or misuse.  You'll need to get a white goods person to inspect it and give you a report.  

It's a pity that so many people who might have better and more easily enforceable rights under consumer protection legislation decide to try to exercise rights under manufacturer's warranties rather than exercise their statutory rights

Indeed.

One of many reasons why Martin Lewis's campaign to teach money management skills to high school students is such a worthwhile cause.

born_again

From the other side where a manufacture provides a warranty that should be the 1st option of a fix & then your consumer rights. 
Or what is the point of a manufacture providing one?

Retailers tend not to have repair staff, so if they say to go via warranty for a fix, which as has been said is the faster option in the 1st place, as retailer would only go same route, but as a extra party is going to take longer  to sort.

Something to add to the consumer rights?

RefluentBeans

born_again said:

From the other side where a manufacture provides a warranty that should be the 1st option of a fix & then your consumer rights. 
Or what is the point of a manufacture providing one?

Retailers tend not to have repair staff, so if they say to go via warranty for a fix, which as has been said is the faster option in the 1st place, as retailer would only go same route, but as a extra party is going to take longer  to sort.

Something to add to the consumer rights?

If the retailer recognises that a repair under said warranty is their chance to repair the product I see no issue with it. The issue is if the retailer doesn’t recognise the repair as their ‘attempt’ to repair or replace and so consumers have to put up with a doubly faulty product; where they’d be able to exercise their final right to reject. 

Some retailers tend to *ahem* forget their obligations under the CRA; and send people to the manufacturer to get the repair. Then because they didn’t organise it, they don’t accept that as their chance to repair the product before consumers can enforce their final right to reject. It may well be the same warranty the retailer uses to get the repair, but it should be organised by the retailer (or at least them accepting that if the repair fails the consumer can reject the item).