14 month old Hoover dishwasher has internal rust

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

That figure all depends on how often it's used and maintained though. 

The matter is too trivial for anyone to go to great lengths to establish how often OP uses their dishwasher, in the absence of the unit recording cycles, balance of probabilities. 

But of course you make a good point, perhaps the company should have asked OP how often they use their dishwasher to establish an appropriate deduction..... 

powerful_Rogue said: I don't think that would look very favourably upon the OP.

So far the company have breached the CPRs by misleading OP about their rights (second to last email), advised a usage deduction based on an erroneous formula and have gone from "not our problem mate" to "oh we know all about rights", what did they do in the last few days, read a book on the CRA?

If there were to be a question raised of integrity I wouldn't want to be the company.

What is evident is that the mere mention of rights has changed their tune, the cost of travelling to OP's local county court and defending the claim will cost more than the dishwasher, maybe LBA will change their tune again.

If only they had acted with greater integrity the first instance, maybe it would have all been sorted without OP even having to mention the word "rights"... 

Aylesbury_Duck

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

That figure all depends on how often it's used and maintained though. 

The matter is too trivial for anyone to go to great lengths to establish how often OP uses their dishwasher, in the absence of the unit recording cycles, balance of probabilities. 

But of course you make a good point, perhaps the company should have asked OP how often they use their dishwasher to establish an appropriate deduction..... 

powerful_Rogue said: I don't think that would look very favourably upon the OP.

So far the company have breached the CPRs by misleading OP about their rights (second to last email), advised a usage deduction based on an erroneous formula and have gone from "not our problem mate" to "oh we know all about rights", what did they do in the last few days, read a book on the CRA?

If there were to be a question raised of integrity I wouldn't want to be the company.

What is evident is that the mere mention of rights has changed their tune, the cost of travelling to OP's local county court and defending the claim will cost more than the dishwasher, maybe LBA will change their tune again.

If only they had acted with greater integrity the first instance, maybe it would have all been sorted without OP even having to mention the word "rights"... 

All of this is academic for the moment, though.  All the retailer has done is suggest what the resolution would be.  Until OP has an informed opinion to say the corrosion is a result of an inherent manufacturing defect, and not some sort of misuse or wear, then the retailer doesn't have to do anything at all, and their original  ignorance of consumer laws is moot.

Surely therefore, sending a LBA now is jumping the gun?

OP, can you clarify, has the retailer offered this resolution now, or are they expecting you to get an inspection and report?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Aylesbury_Duck said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

That figure all depends on how often it's used and maintained though. 

The matter is too trivial for anyone to go to great lengths to establish how often OP uses their dishwasher, in the absence of the unit recording cycles, balance of probabilities. 

But of course you make a good point, perhaps the company should have asked OP how often they use their dishwasher to establish an appropriate deduction..... 

powerful_Rogue said: I don't think that would look very favourably upon the OP.

So far the company have breached the CPRs by misleading OP about their rights (second to last email), advised a usage deduction based on an erroneous formula and have gone from "not our problem mate" to "oh we know all about rights", what did they do in the last few days, read a book on the CRA?

If there were to be a question raised of integrity I wouldn't want to be the company.

What is evident is that the mere mention of rights has changed their tune, the cost of travelling to OP's local county court and defending the claim will cost more than the dishwasher, maybe LBA will change their tune again.

If only they had acted with greater integrity the first instance, maybe it would have all been sorted without OP even having to mention the word "rights"... 

then the retailer doesn't have to do anything at all, and their original  ignorance of consumer laws is moot.

No indeed they don’t but they might fold 🙂 They’ve already folded once. 

CPRs give right to redress include unwinding the contract but I’m sure how that stands after 14 months so can’t advise OP to use it to their advantage.

Aylesbury_Duck said:

OP, can you clarify, has the retailer offered this resolution now, or are they expecting you to get an inspection and report?

I think they want the report.

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

That figure all depends on how often it's used and maintained though. 

The matter is too trivial for anyone to go to great lengths to establish how often OP uses their dishwasher, in the absence of the unit recording cycles, balance of probabilities. 

But of course you make a good point, perhaps the company should have asked OP how often they use their dishwasher to establish an appropriate deduction..... 

powerful_Rogue said: I don't think that would look very favourably upon the OP.

So far the company have breached the CPRs by misleading OP about their rights (second to last email), advised a usage deduction based on an erroneous formula and have gone from "not our problem mate" to "oh we know all about rights", what did they do in the last few days, read a book on the CRA?

If there were to be a question raised of integrity I wouldn't want to be the company.

What is evident is that the mere mention of rights has changed their tune, the cost of travelling to OP's local county court and defending the claim will cost more than the dishwasher, maybe LBA will change their tune again.

If only they had acted with greater integrity the first instance, maybe it would have all been sorted without OP even having to mention the word "rights"... 

then the retailer doesn't have to do anything at all, and their original  ignorance of consumer laws is moot.

No indeed they don’t but they might fold 🙂 They’ve already folded once. 

CPRs give right to redress include unwinding the contract but I’m sure how that stands after 14 months so can’t advise OP to use it to their advantage.

Aylesbury_Duck said:

OP, can you clarify, has the retailer offered this resolution now, or are they expecting you to get an inspection and report?

I think they want the report.

They might, or they might not. I will still say at this stage sending a LBA is a little too pre-emptive. Plus it only really works if the consumer is willing to follow it through. If it becomes a common issue, companies will just ignore.

Hedwig2023

Thanks for the advice, they want a report by a manufacturer recognised engineer (or words to that effect). 

I'll try to book an engineer via Hoover, to ensure they trust the report. 

I think I'll ask for compensation to cover the fact they've misled me about my rights until now, plus my time spent making phone calls & emails, & searching for consumer advice. 

Hedwig2023

Oh, and for clarity, the dishwasher is used about 5 times a week, on eco or hot wash settings.

Aylesbury_Duck

Hedwig2023 said:

Thanks for the advice, they want a report by a manufacturer recognised engineer (or words to that effect). 

I'll try to book an engineer via Hoover, to ensure they trust the report. 

I think I'll ask for compensation to cover the fact they've misled me about my rights until now, plus my time spent making phone calls & emails, & searching for consumer advice. 

There's no need to use a Hoover technician.  One could argue you're being too generous, because a Hoover technician might be tempted to side with the manufacturer.  A local white goods repair person is perfectly sufficient and truly independent.  Probably cheaper, too.

You're not entitled to compensation, beyond any genuine costs you've incurred.  There's no entitlement to compensation for being misled, nor for time spent making calls unless you can prove you had to take unpaid time off work to make them, for example.  You might ask for a goodwill payment of course, but I'd focus on getting the dishwasher sorted before you start to appear greedy.  Get that sorted and then ask nicely for a little something for your trouble.  If it gets as far as court you won't get "compo" for anything other than evidenced costs.