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

Okell

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?

The point of a manufacturer providing a warranty is surely to attract more customers and more sales?

I think that when most (unknowing?) consumers see that something comes with a manufacturer's warranty they automatically seem to think that the warranty will give them better protection than the legislation* - which they are probably unaware of.

We see it on these pages all the time when an item fails and the consumer complains straight to the manufacturer rather than pursuing the seller.

I wouldn't resort to using a manufacturer's guarantee before my CRA rights unless I was 100% satisfied that the warranty gave me better rights than my statutory ones.  In many if not most cases I'd suspect that it didn't.*

Of course if I go to the seller with a problem and they refer me directly to the manufacturer, I'll be happy to accept that advice, but I will also be making it clear to the seller that by referring me to the manufacturer for repair or replacement then as far as I'm concerned that is the seller's one and only opportunity to repair or replace the item.  If the manufacturer's attempt to repair or replace fails then I will want a refund from the seller.

RefluentBeans said:

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). 

My view is that it's irrelevant whether the seller accepts that their advice to me to go direct to the retailer constitutes their one and only attempt to repair or replace.  If they advise me to go direct to the manufacturer I will explain to them "OK - I've come to you to exercise my rights under the CRA.  Understand that your referral of me to the manufacturer for a remedy constitutes the single attempt at repair or replacement that the legislation permits you.  If the manufacturer can't fix it first time I will require a refund from you"


*Going off on a bit of an aside, I'm always a bit uncomfortable when some posters use phrases like "over and above" or "in addition to" your statutory rights when talking about manufacturer's warranties as those words always seem to imply to me that they automatically give you better consumer rights than the legislation does.  I'd prefer an explanation that simply says that "A manufacturer's warranty gives you different rights separate from those in consumer rights legislation.  The rights a warranty give you depend entirely on the T&Cs of the warranty.  Those rights might be fewer and less advantageous to you than those given by the legislation".

HHarry

Isn’t this a slightly different problem though?  It’s not a case of whether it’s repaired under warranty or as a chargeable event.  It can’t be repaired at all because the Manufacturer can’t supply the parts.

Perhaps the Right to Repair legislation is more appropriate.  This link suggests that parts should be available for 7-10 years, but I haven’t found the consequences of that not happening.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9302/CBP-9302.pdf

jimbo6977

A warranty is attractive because of the great difficulty of, and risks inherent in, attempting to enforce CRA rights. A proper expert report will cost a pretty penny with no guarantee that it will be in the consumer's favour, or at least that it won't be tempered by caveats and equivocations. Even with a favourable report it could take court action to get a retailer to accept it, which again is not sure to succeed. 

For all but the most expensive consumer purchases the CRA is a bureaucratic waste of time. 

PHK

Okell said:

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?

The point of a manufacturer providing a warranty is surely to attract more customers and more sales?

I think that when most (unknowing?) consumers see that something comes with a manufacturer's warranty they automatically seem to think that the warranty will give them better protection than the legislation* - which they are probably unaware of.

We see it on these pages all the time when an item fails and the consumer complains straight to the manufacturer rather than pursuing the seller.

I wouldn't resort to using a manufacturer's guarantee before my CRA rights unless I was 100% satisfied that the warranty gave me better rights than my statutory ones.  In many if not most cases I'd suspect that it didn't.*

Of course if I go to the seller with a problem and they refer me directly to the manufacturer, I'll be happy to accept that advice, but I will also be making it clear to the seller that by referring me to the manufacturer for repair or replacement then as far as I'm concerned that is the seller's one and only opportunity to repair or replace the item.  If the manufacturer's attempt to repair or replace fails then I will want a refund from the seller.

RefluentBeans said:

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). 

My view is that it's irrelevant whether the seller accepts that their advice to me to go direct to the retailer constitutes their one and only attempt to repair or replace.  If they advise me to go direct to the manufacturer I will explain to them "OK - I've come to you to exercise my rights under the CRA.  Understand that your referral of me to the manufacturer for a remedy constitutes the single attempt at repair or replacement that the legislation permits you.  If the manufacturer can't fix it first time I will require a refund from you"


*Going off on a bit of an aside, I'm always a bit uncomfortable when some posters use phrases like "over and above" or "in addition to" your statutory rights when talking about manufacturer's warranties as those words always seem to imply to me that they automatically give you better consumer rights than the legislation does.  I'd prefer an explanation that simply says that "A manufacturer's warranty gives you different rights separate from those in consumer rights legislation.  The rights a warranty give you depend entirely on the T&Cs of the warranty.  Those rights might be fewer and less advantageous to you than those given by the legislation".

An interesting point which might not seem relevant at first but will become apparent. 

In law there is no definition of what a contract of insurance is. If something is considered a contract of insurance then it is regulated under the regulated activities order, the firm requires FCA authorisation and must comply with ICOBS, Consumer Duty etc. etc. 

The FCA sets out guidance based on case law of what would make a warranty/guarantee or service contract likely to be a contract of insurance. (That’s their wording, likely, not definitely) 

One of the things is whether the consumer (in this case) has a right, under the warranty/guarantee/service plan,  to action or a specific outcome. 

In the case of a manufacturer warranty, the course of action must their sole discretion and the types of situations must not be more expansive than the ordinary obligations (the FCA’s words again) the manufacturer would have. 

So a manufacturer warranty should  never give rights to action or outcome. If it did it would run the risk of being seen as a contract of insurance. This is why they can often appear vague to those expecting the certainty of consumer rights legislation.

This all means the paragraph you mentioned couldn’t  be used because it implies rights rather than a decision by a manufacturer. It’s also why warranties often merely point out that the consumer has rights under consumer legislation rather than compare consumer rights to the warranty. 

In my opinion Australia has a better approach. The retailer and manufacturer are jointly liable for the consumer rights of the purchaser. If the retailer can’t / won’t resolve then the manufacturer has to. There’s no confusion between warranty and consumer rights. (Additionally insurance/extended warranties must state they don’t affect the consumers rights and can only cover things that are caused by the consumer. Eg accidental damage. )

Okell

@PHK - that's interesting.

Regarding my wording, let me clarify in case you've misunderstood.  I'm not suggesting my wording be used in warranties and guarantees.  What I'm saying is that it really annoys me whan I see some posters on here saying that warranties are in addiditon to or over and above the protections offered to the consumer by the legislation.

The reason it annoys me is because those two phrases imply to me that a warranty is giving you something superior to and better than the protections given the consumer under the legislation - and I doubt that that is usually the case.

So what I'm talking about is the way warranties are described on these boards.  If a better word or phrase can be used than rights I have no problem with that.  Perhaps potential remedies.  I dunno.

Your point about warranties not being able to give rights or outcomes is interesting.

I recall someone who contributed on here a couple of years ago to a thread on a manufacturer's warranty.  Miele I think?  If I recall correctly they claimed that they had successfully enforced the warranty in court because the warranty had stated that warranty outcomes were at the discretion of Miele and the court apparently ruled that the "discretion" term was unfair and said Miele had to provide a remedy under the warranty.  (I may not have the details 100% correct but that's the gist of it.  I seem to remember that that particular poster - not a regular - posted on a couple of similar threads then disappeared)

The Australian approach would probably simplify matters and make everything more transparent, but I'm not sure I see it happening here.  The doctrine of privity of contract is too dominant for that to happen unless Parliament changes the law.  And I can't see that happening unless the EU introduced something similar and the UK govt decided that it needed - for whatever reason - to go down the same route.

Okell

Regarding the Miele warranty "discretion" issue I referred to in the previous post, it was from this thread:  MIELE WASHING MACHINE WARRANTY ISSUE — MoneySavingExpert Forum

See the posts by DJMC, The_Mounty and LNB2

It wasn't quite as I recalled.  It wasn't a court decision.  It was Miele exercising their "discretion" so as not to do something, but then backing down after consumers threatened court action on the grounds that the term was unfair.

Okell

jimbo6977 said:

A warranty is attractive because of the great difficulty of, and risks inherent in, attempting to enforce CRA rights. A proper expert report will cost a pretty penny with no guarantee that it will be in the consumer's favour, or at least that it won't be tempered by caveats and equivocations. Even with a favourable report it could take court action to get a retailer to accept it, which again is not sure to succeed. 

For all but the most expensive consumer purchases the CRA is a bureaucratic waste of time. 

1.  My view - as I've already said - is that the consumer needs to weigh up what is offered by any warranty as opposed to consumer rights legislation and must proceed accordingly.  I would only proceed down the warranty route first if I were 100% satisfied that it was offering me a better deal than the legislation.

(It's a bit like cancelling distance contract sales where the seller offers their own alternative returns policy.  I would always advise consumers to cancel under the CCRs rather than use the seller's own returns policy unless the seller's policy offers a better deal.  eg an extended returns period).


2.  There isn't necessarily any difficulty, risk or cost at all in going down the consumer rights route.  Any malfunction within 6 months of purchase does not need an expert report at all.  A CRA claim also doesn't have to proceed any further than writing a letter.  It's quite obvious from many threads on here, where consumers have come to an impasse with a seller, that all that is needed for the seller to capitulate is to be made aware that the consumer now knows their legal rights and is prepared to take legal action if necessary.  How many times do we see threads here where the OP has thanked the forum for pointing them in the correct legal direction allowing them to persuade the seller that the law is not on the seller's side?  Nothing more required than a 'phone call, a letter or an email.


3.  If there's a CRA milestone approaching (eg 30 days or 6 months) then a consumer is probably better off initiating a CRA claim in order to reserve their position.  How often do we see posters on here who seem to have got into an unstaisfactory and seemingly endless cycle of repairs or replacement under warranty but have never approached the seller.  OPs have often lost the opportunity to reject a duff product for a full refund because they've engaged with the manufacturer rather than with the seller.  (In any case, there's nothing to stop someone going down the CRA route and switching to warranty later if they don't like their CRA rights)

4.  I'm not sure you're correct that the CRA approach is better suited to more expensive purchases.  It seems to me that if a consumer can demonstrate to the seller that they know the law and that the law is on their side, then a seller is more likely to think it isn't worthwhile to defend a potential claim in respect of low value purchases rather than higher value.  For higher value purchases a seller might decide they want to drag things 0out in a game of brinksmanship and see exactly how willing someone is to go to the hassle of bringing a claim and possibly arguing it in court.

5.  In any case, if @PHK is correct  - and I have no reason to doubt them - then a manufacturer's warranty doesn't give a purchaser any rights at all as the terms of the warranty will reserve discretion to the warranty giver as to how they deal with any warranty claim...


My point in posting on this thread originally was to say that I don't understand why so many people automatically claim under a warranty and seem to be totally ignorant of their statutory rights, often getting stuck in a back and forth exchange with the manufacturer and possible letting CRA rights against the seller expire.  Consumers need to be aware of their statutory rights and be able to compare warranties against those rights critically.

Jumblebumble

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?

Hmm this does create a conundrum in my mind
If a device fails under warranty and the manufacturer replaces it can the Trader say ah well that is not the device I sold you so I have no responsibility for as you  cannot return the device I supplied to me or let me repair refund or replace it?
Likewise what happens if  the manufacturer bodges the repair ?
( Manufacturers often send third party companies to do warranty repairs who might be employing heaven knows what untrained people)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

As of 1 year ago, when you go on the AO website for help with a faulty product you get something like the following (this was a few days after delivery, perhaps after a set time you might see something different):



So I asked AO why that doesn't also note the customer may contact AO directly and whether the customer going to the manufacturer would be classed as a remedy allowing the final right to reject with AO if the manufacture remedy failed.  

Their response was:

AO provides information on its website to help customers who unfortunately have an issue with their product to resolve it as efficiently as possible.  By contacting the manufacturer the customer will receive immediate trouble-shooting assistance from a product specialist; in a large proportion of cases this resolves the matter without any further steps .......

Should further steps be needed, AO fully ensures that the customer receives their full statutory entitlement (e.g. repair/replacement/final right to reject) and the customer is not prejudiced by having made contact with the manufacturer directly.  A customer is always able to contact AO regarding any aspect of their order both before and after delivery.  AO considers its processes and information meet relevant statutory and regulatory obligations, including those mentioned in your message below.

So it doesn't really answer the first question and the the second question is hinted a as a "yes right to reject with AO after failed manufacturer remedy" but not stated with complete clarity (to my mind). 

If being stuck in this place of being told your contact with the manufacturer wasn't a remedy with the retailer thus you can't jump to final right to reject you could argue a breach of the CPRs depending upon the specifics of the how you were directed to the manufacturer, which allows 4 various options of redress although I'm not sure how they would play out exactly in this kind of instance, but the best bet is to take out finance if it's offered at 0% or can be paid in full without any fees or pay on a credit card so you have S75 cover. 

So OP did you pay via credit card/AO finance? 

ajc269

I have got through to someone else at AO and they have been far more helpful. However, they need a clear report from Pacifica that the appliance is unrepairable due to non-availability of parts. However, the only information that Pacifica will make available is via their customer portal and it says this

ASC: JTM CONTRACTS UK LIMITE Request Title: BER REQUEST - LRT Request date: 02/08/2024 Request Content: Explanation: Raising this case for LRT as the repair has been pending in JTM for 42 days now and the next appointment will be on Friday 09 August. Upon checking JTM portal, 1/8 appointment failed due to wrong parts received. Retailer not applicable due to this is chargeable repair Approval Content: 02/08- Approved for LRT- Please cancel the repair

Service centre

02/08/2024 14:45:13

Anyone like to translate that into English for me?

It was only over the phone, did they say it was unrepairable due to parts availability - I've had nothing in writing nor have they refunded the repair cost which they said they would. I have tried several times over the course of this repair process to speak to someone at Pacifica and have never been able to get through to a real live person in spite of hanging on the phone for an hour each time after which it cuts off.