Clarification of CRA and S75 rights.

RJM219

Hi all.

Currently in the middle of a bit of a nightmarish situation relating to an exploding induction cooker, and wanting to get an idea of a) whether I'm right in feeling that the retailer's solution is derisory, and b) whether anyone has any inclination as to how the S75 process would be likely to shake out.

Crux and timeline of the matter is thus:

May 2022: Induction cooker purchased online from large retailer. Total cost of £479 paid with credit card + further £for installation of appliance. No extended warranty etc. purchased.

Mid Jan 2025. Hob makes a loud "POP" sound in the course of general use and throws up error messages when attempting to use any further. Suspect that it is been component failure on board. Multiple back and forths with retailer. Advised at time that they would be unwilling to refund/replace due to being outside of warranty. Offered out of warranty repair at cost of £150. This is - reluctantly - accepted and also paid via CC, partially in hope that callout will demonstrate that it has clearly been a manufacturing fault.

Late Jan 2025: engineer comes out to assess. Confirms that it's been component failure. Advises that due to nature of failure, unlikely that retailer will consider repair as an economical solution. Does temporary fix to restore functionality but advises that it's a matter of "when" next failure occurs, not if. £75 of £150 callout fee refunded

Late April/early May 2025: go to use hob one evening and the hob is completely non functional, no error code at all.

8th May 2025 (today): call retailer to report that this repair has now failed. Advise looking for substantial, refund, possibly full, in light of engineer stating that the issue has been a manufacturing fault. Conversation between regular customer service sees me passed to Out Of Warranty team. Out of warranty team advise their full and final offer is for £163 in store credit  in light of having had use of cooker for 35 months. (Actually 31 before need for repair which also failed, but that feels like nitpicking).

My position is that I feel that a refund of £163 for an appliance which has failed in less than 3 years due to a manufacturing fault (and with multiple other issues present *as advised in the engineer's report*) is absolutely derisory. It wouldn't even cover the combined cost of installation of a new appliance and the remaining cost of that engineer visit if I were to purchase from that retailer, which the store credit effectively strong arms me into. I'm also thinking it's very much in the remit of the RT part of Martin's SAD FART mnemonic, especially when this retailer's online store shows the ticket price and the installment price "over 36 months" , which to my mind establishes a clear "reasonable time" floor.

I'm hoping for a little insight from those a bit more well versed in the practical application of the CRA than myself: am I unreasonable in thinking that's a derisory offer?

Further, I'm aware of S75 as a process - it's why I use my credit card for larger purchases - but it's very much a surface level awareness. I know it's very much a situation where each case likely works very much on its own merits, but does this sound like a fairly clear cut situation?

I'm aware it's unlikely to be quick, but I'm the type of person who at least likes to have a rough idea of what to expect before taking a course of action with things like this. Particularly in the current economic climate where I'm looking at a pretty high unexpected expense.

Thanks all

born_again

RJM219 said:

Hi all.

Currently in the middle of a bit of a nightmarish situation relating to an exploding induction cooker, and wanting to get an idea of a) whether I'm right in feeling that the retailer's solution is derisory, and b) whether anyone has any inclination as to how the S75 process would be likely to shake out.

Crux and timeline of the matter is thus:

May 2022: Induction cooker purchased online from large retailer. Total cost of £479 paid with credit card + further £for installation of appliance. No extended warranty etc. purchased.

Mid Jan 2025. Hob makes a loud "POP" sound in the course of general use and throws up error messages when attempting to use any further. Suspect that it is been component failure on board. Multiple back and forths with retailer. Advised at time that they would be unwilling to refund/replace due to being outside of warranty. Offered out of warranty repair at cost of £150. This is - reluctantly - accepted and also paid via CC, partially in hope that callout will demonstrate that it has clearly been a manufacturing fault.

Late Jan 2025: engineer comes out to assess. Confirms that it's been component failure. Advises that due to nature of failure, unlikely that retailer will consider repair as an economical solution. Does temporary fix to restore functionality but advises that it's a matter of "when" next failure occurs, not if. £75 of £150 callout fee refunded

Late April/early May 2025: go to use hob one evening and the hob is completely non functional, no error code at all.

8th May 2025 (today): call retailer to report that this repair has now failed. Advise looking for substantial, refund, possibly full, in light of engineer stating that the issue has been a manufacturing fault. Conversation between regular customer service sees me passed to Out Of Warranty team. Out of warranty team advise their full and final offer is for £163 in store credit  in light of having had use of cooker for 35 months. (Actually 31 before need for repair which also failed, but that feels like nitpicking).

My position is that I feel that a refund of £163 for an appliance which has failed in less than 3 years due to a manufacturing fault (and with multiple other issues present *as advised in the engineer's report*) is absolutely derisory. It wouldn't even cover the combined cost of installation of a new appliance and the remaining cost of that engineer visit if I were to purchase from that retailer, which the store credit effectively strong arms me into. I'm also thinking it's very much in the remit of the RT part of Martin's SAD FART mnemonic, especially when this retailer's online store shows the ticket price and the installment price "over 36 months" , which to my mind establishes a clear "reasonable time" floor.

I'm hoping for a little insight from those a bit more well versed in the practical application of the CRA than myself: am I unreasonable in thinking that's a derisory offer?

Further, I'm aware of S75 as a process - it's why I use my credit card for larger purchases - but it's very much a surface level awareness. I know it's very much a situation where each case likely works very much on its own merits, but does this sound like a fairly clear cut situation?

I'm aware it's unlikely to be quick, but I'm the type of person who at least likes to have a rough idea of what to expect before taking a course of action with things like this. Particularly in the current economic climate where I'm looking at a pretty high unexpected expense.

Thanks all

Most retailers will base on a 6 year use.
So the £163 is on the low side. I would go back for something over £200 to make up to 50% of the cost, given it is just 3 years old.

Given that the retailer has offered a outcome. S75 is going to be interesting as I can see the reply being as they have offered a outcome. There is no breech.
Although if retailer will not up offer, you might get a good will payment to bring it up to half way.

RJM219

born_again said:

Most retailers will base on a 6 year use.
So the £163 is on the low side. I would go back for something over £200 to make up to 50% of the cost, given it is just 3 years old.

Given that the retailer has offered a outcome. S75 is going to be interesting as I can see the reply being as they have offered a outcome. There is no breech.
Although if retailer will not up offer, you might get a good will payment to bring it up to half way.

The tricky thing here is I had tried that tack (former customer service rep for a different retailer). Out of Warranty team have said that they're unable to offer goodwill gestures (had a laugh with the adviser as they said themselves that their job would be a lot easier if they could!)

My understanding of the S75 process was that I'd have given the retailer the opportunity to resolve and if I was unhappy with their resolution, to *then* go to the S75 process, but my knowledge of it is, again, as I mentioned, surface level.

I'm looking at contacting the complaints team and seeing if that yields anything (e.g., a goodwill offer to bring it up to 50%. Possibly 50% + remaining callout fee.)

It's good to hear that my gut feeling that the £163 was on the low side wasn't completely off base though!

Ergates

RJM219 said:

born_again said:

Most retailers will base on a 6 year use.
So the £163 is on the low side. I would go back for something over £200 to make up to 50% of the cost, given it is just 3 years old.

Given that the retailer has offered a outcome. S75 is going to be interesting as I can see the reply being as they have offered a outcome. There is no breech.
Although if retailer will not up offer, you might get a good will payment to bring it up to half way.

The tricky thing here is I had tried that tack (former customer service rep for a different retailer). Out of Warranty team have said that they're unable to offer goodwill gestures (had a laugh with the adviser as they said themselves that their job would be a lot easier if they could!)

My understanding of the S75 process was that I'd have given the retailer the opportunity to resolve and if I was unhappy with their resolution, to *then* go to the S75 process, but my knowledge of it is, again, as I mentioned, surface level.

I'm looking at contacting the complaints team and seeing if that yields anything (e.g., a goodwill offer to bring it up to 50%. Possibly 50% + remaining callout fee.)

It's good to hear that my gut feeling that the £163 was on the low side wasn't completely off base though!

You're not asking for goodwill, you're asking for a fair partial refund as you are entitled to by consumer law. 

A warranty sits over and above your consumer rights and cannot replace them, so it being out of warranty is irrelevant.

Something like a cooker failing after 3 years I'd be looking for about 50% - so £240.   If they did the installation too, then you could ask for 1//2 of that too.

A_Geordie

The first point is that before you can rely on any remedies under the CRA, you need to ensure you have clearly communicated of your intention to treat the contract at an end on the basis of a faulty product.

Assuming you are seeking a refund, the next step is to consider any deduction for use during that period which is what the retailer is entitled to under the CRA. There is no set formula for calculating deductions as it will depend on the goods. 

One method of working it out is to consider the average lifespan of the cooker. Does the retailer state in their product sheet or other information about the cooker the average lifespan? If not, is there any other reputable sources that would indicate the average lifespan? A quick Google search suggests the average lifespan of a cooker is 10-15 years. 

For example, £479 / 10 years = £47.90 depreciation per year x 3 years use = £143.70 total deduction. If there have been significant periods of loss of use whilst waiting for repairs then the deduction could be reduced by an amount to reflect that. If you applied a lifespan of 15 years, the deduction for use would be £95.80

For the callout fee, unless you made it clear that you were seeking the full amount instead of half at the time and did not accept the £75 as settlement, it could be argued that you have accepted that as full and final settlement. The onus is on you to evidence that in your favour. 

As to s75, I take a different view to @born_again. There seems to be a common misconception that s75 is a process created by banks or other creditors that you must follow in order to claim. You do not need to do that. S75 is enshrined under the Consumer Credit Act 19974 which, if all criteria is met, makes the creditor jointly and severally liable for the breach or misrepresentation. 

It is a strict liability which means if you can prove your case, then they are liable up to the full amount being claimed. If you wanted to, try and do all of your negotiations or settlement with the retailer and if there is no resolution, you could send a letter before action to both the retailer and the creditor with the intention to issue proceedings if they do not agree to settle your claim. Any creditor who attempts to re-direct you to their claims process for s75 is irrelevant and a misrepresentation of the law. You have no legal obligation to do so. Joint and several liability means you can choose to pursue the retailer on their own, the creditor on their own or both of them. 

Obviously if you are considering suing the creditor under s75 then it would be good practice to give them written notice of the issue and that you are trying to reach a settlement with the retailer, but if that fails then you intend to sue the creditor for breach of contract. The bare minimum you need to do is send a letter before action, but you could also follow the creditor's process in parallel to retailer negotiations or you could wait for the retailer's outcome, before starting the process or you could just send the letter before action. The choice is entirely yours to make at your own discretion. 

In some cases, you may only wish to pursue the creditor if the retailer does not have the money or assets or in any event is not worth suing. In that case you could issue a letter before action and give them a reasonable period to respond to the claim e.g. 14 days before starting legal proceedings.

Okell

@RJM219 -  you aren't entitled to a full refund because the trader is entitled to deduct an amount to reflect the "use" you have had of the cooker.  Unfortunately the law does not define how to value that "use" so it becomes a bit "how long is a ball of string?"

Let's assume you've had 35 months of "use" out of it.  If we further assume an expected lifespan of 5 years (60 months) then you could argue that you are entitled to a refund of 25/60ths of the original purchase price - say £200.

However, as other posters have said, most retailers work on an expected lifespan of 6 years (72 months) for this sort of item, so that would give you a refund of 37/72ths(?) of the original purchase price - say £246.

That is probably the best you can argue for as you can back it up with a calculation that seems reasonable together with a reasonable expected life span. 

But you might want to try to argue that a life expecatancy of 6 years is unrealistic, and that 8 years or even ten years would be more realistic.  If you want to try arguing that it would give you refunds of £304 (8 years) or £340 (10 years), but you'd be on less certain ground here, although it might help as a bargaining chip.

If you end up suing them, remember you need to be able to back up the amount you are claiming

RJM219

Okell said:

@RJM219 -  you aren't entitled to a full refund because the trader is entitled to deduct an amount to reflect the "use" you have had of the cooker.  Unfortunately the law does not define how to value that "use" so it becomes a bit "how long is a ball of string?"

Let's assume you've had 35 months of "use" out of it.  If we further assume an expected lifespan of 5 years (60 months) then you could argue that you are entitled to a refund of 25/60ths of the original purchase price - say £200.

However, as other posters have said, most retailers work on an expected lifespan of 6 years (72 months) for this sort of item, so that would give you a refund of 37/72ths(?) of the original purchase price - say £246.

That is probably the best you can argue for as you can back it up with a calculation that seems reasonable together with a reasonable expected life span. 

But you might want to try to argue that a life expecatancy of 6 years is unrealistic, and that 8 years or even ten years would be more realistic.  If you want to try arguing that it would give you refunds of £304 (8 years) or £340 (10 years), but you'd be on less certain ground here, although it might help as a bargaining chip.

If you end up suing them, remember you need to be able to back up the amount you are claiming

On having done a bit of research here and there, I've found that there's a decent body of evidence (from appliance manufacturers, other retailers in the industry, and the European Environmental Agency) which all seem to converge on an average lifespan of an electric cooker as being between 10-15 years.

My hope is that coupled with a copy of the engineer's report (which I've requested but we'll see whether I get given it), direction to average life expectancies as shown through more than a handful of reputable sources will be enough to get them to acquiesce to either a refund based on percentage of a 10 year lifespan back to the credit card, or a percentage based on a 13 year lifespan in credit to reflect the fact that they'll effectively be getting the money "back" as it were, but I think my floor is refund based on 8 years to the card or 10 in credit

(Contrary to a lot of people it seems, I've never had any issues dealing with this particular retailer for their extended warranties etc which I've always seen as an additional cushion on top of my consumer rights to make things a bit easier if things do go sideways. What price do you put on your time and energy etc!)

born_again

A_Geordie said:

As to s75, I take a different view to @born_again. There seems to be a common misconception that s75 is a process created by banks or other creditors that you must follow in order to claim. You do not need to do that. S75 is enshrined under the Consumer Credit Act 19974 which, if all criteria is met, makes the creditor jointly and severally liable for the breach or misrepresentation. 

Not a different view. 👍

As the retailer has offered a resolution (Even though it is a poor one) then that can be taken that there is not breech of contract. As retailer have fulfilled the CRA.

Okell

If you think you have research that can back up a claim for an expected life > 6 years then by all means use that as a bargaining chip to get as much out of the retailer as you can.

But bear in mind that if you end up suing them - and hopefully you reach a mutually satisfactory resolution before then - that you will have to convince a court that 10 years, or whatever you go with, is more resonable than 5 or 6.

(As an aside you may or may not be aware of the Limitation Act 1980 which makes it impossible/very difficult to sue retailers for faulty goods more than 6 years after purchase.  I think this is why retailers generally default to a life expectancy for their goods of 6 years, knowing that consumers basically can't sue after the passage of 6 years.  Of course not being able to sue after 6 years does not mean that it is reasonable to expect goods to last for only 6 years.  A lot of kitchen goods ought to last for 10+ years.  We had to buy a new fridge/freezer in September last year but the old one had been trouble free for 28 years...)

A_Geordie

born_again said:

Not a different view. 👍

As the retailer has offered a resolution (Even though it is a poor one) then that can be taken that there is not breech of contract. As retailer have fulfilled the CRA.

I think based on the above then we do have a different view.

The fact that an offer of settlement has been made doesn't absolve the CC co. of liability under s75 and that certainly doesn't mean there is no longer a breach. It remains a breach of contract until it has been resolved/settled. So OP could accept part payment from the retailer and pursue the rest from the CC co.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Perpetuating this idea that everything should last 6 years isn't of benefit to consumers, here is an independent document with an opinion of 9-15 years for cookers and hobs which I would use along with a calculation of

£479/144 x 109 = £362

that gives 12 years of use with some wiggle room to settle at 10 years (£339)

https://theindependentlandlord.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/A-Guide-to-product-lifespans-1.pdf