Advice please

Ladydismay40

Hello, I would appreciate some advice. Two years ago, I bought a cooker and had it fitted by the company. Three weeks later, the oven broke. When I called to request an exchange, I was told I needed to purchase insurance. They mentioned that if they deemed I had been too rough with it, I would be charged £150. So, I went ahead and took out the insurance.

Unfortunately, six months later, the cooker broke again with the same issue. Then, it broke once more six months after that, and now, six months later, it has broken yet again. Each time, I receive an email stating that an engineer will come to fix it and find it very difficult to speak to someone I work full-time, and coordinating these repairs every six months is becoming exhausting. I also have two children, and I'm losing patience. 

I wanted a replacement after the first three weeks, but I was told no. Can anyone advise me on my rights in this situation? Thank you.

Mark_d

You should have insisted on a replacement, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, when the over failed in the first three weeks.  Why has it taken two years to look for a solution?

Fortunately, armed with plenty of evidence that the cooker was faulty from the start, you do have a legal right to a replacement.  This is not about insurance or guarantees.  This is the law.

eskbanker

Ladydismay40 said:

Hello, I would appreciate some advice. Two years ago, I bought a cooker and had it fitted by the company. Three weeks later, the oven broke. When I called to request an exchange, I was told I needed to purchase insurance. They mentioned that if they deemed I had been too rough with it, I would be charged £150. So, I went ahead and took out the insurance.

Perhaps worth naming the company you bought the cooker from, as this conduct sounds reprehensible - just to be clear, have all of your dealings been with the retailer, or have you been in contact with the manufacturer (if different)?

Ladydismay40

Hello, thank you for your response. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to name the company, and I feel an idiot about not sorting this before. my initial call they put a lot of pressure on me to take out the insurance, and I mistakenly thought they would fix the issue when it happened again. I was told that they would only replace the item if it couldn’t be repaired. The engineers are always lovely and do fix it, but the problem keeps recurring. I've spent all day messaging back and forth, and they are refusing to address my complaint, stating that it doesn't warrant further attention and will only be logged as an internal review.

eskbanker

Ladydismay40 said:

I wasn't sure if I was allowed to name the company

Yes, you are (look at other threads on this board if you want to verify this), and it would help clarify whether they're the retailer or the manufacturer, an important distinction when it comes to ascertaining consumer rights.

Ergates

eskbanker said:

Ladydismay40 said:

I wasn't sure if I was allowed to name the company

Yes, you are (look at other threads on this board if you want to verify this), and it would help clarify whether they're the retailer or the manufacturer, an important distinction when it comes to ascertaining consumer rights.

Important to be clear given the shocking behaviour described.

Okell

I'd suggest the OP ought to complain to CAB and ask them to refer this to Trading standards for investigation as a potential breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  I would have thought this was something that should be prosecuted.

EssexHebridean

A company who insist on selling you insurance in order for them to repair a clearly faulty item (which as stated, they should have been willing to replace on the first occasion anyway!) definitely need naming - just be sure to keep everything factual and accurate, as long as you are simply exposing what has happened there’s no issue with naming thrm.