EO Mini Pro 2 Removal of support

Hesperus

Alderbank said:

Hesperus said:

Be that as it may, I've bitten the bullet and bought a full price replacement from another company, but if this is the way things are heading in the world of consumer rights then I suggest we all prepare to be ripped off left right and centre - with government backing. 

You can suggest that, of course, but it sounds a bit defeatist.

In the Consumer Rights Act 2015 the whole of chapter three, that's sections 33 to 47, is devoted exclusively to the legal rights specific to digital content which the government you decry has given to consumers.

A more constructive suggestion might be to read about those rights.
If you don't know your rights there are indeed plenty of people out there who will rip you off left, right and centre.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/3

Just to make it clear, it's not governments I decry, it's politicians in general......... 

Greyhoundowner

I have the same issue, but worse for me as I paid extra so the charge tracks my solar (also like the ability to lower the charge rate to 16A when I’m discharging from my house batteries). EO mini 2 also does not like the cold and if the weather is consistently below 0 degrees it refuses to work, I’ve had to build it an insulated jacket. I’ve just returned my EV as not worth final payment but still have a PHEV, will probably replace charger with a 16A socket and use the portable 16A charger I use elsewhere. 

Knarf01

Hi, I complained to EO Charging and have copied and pasted their reply below which may be of interest to others. Clearly they have decided to exit the domestic EV charging market and focus on commercial charging infrastructure developments instead. I believe pursuing the manufacturer, leaving 1 ⭐️ Truspilot reviews, etc is pointless. They feel protected by the fact that they didn’t not sell directly to consumers and are unfased by any reputational damage implications. I pity the companies who sold or installed their EO Mini Pro 2 chargers… That and my credit card provider (Section 75 claim) is certainly where I will be seeking redress. Merry Christmas 🙃

“Thank you for providing a copy of your Proof of Purchase.

The EIC was requested to confirm official installation date, however in this case, it will not be necessary,
 

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your statutory rights and remedies are enforceable against the seller, not the manufacturer. Accordingly, any claim under the Act should be directed to the seller in the first instance.

 

This constitutes EO Charging’s final response to your complaint.

EO Legal”

Okell

Knarf01 said:

... Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your statutory rights and remedies are enforceable against the seller, not the manufacturer. Accordingly, any claim under the Act should be directed to the seller in the first instance...

Why did you complain to EO charging if you didn't buy it from them?

Knarf01

Okell said:

Knarf01 said:

... Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your statutory rights and remedies are enforceable against the seller, not the manufacturer. Accordingly, any claim under the Act should be directed to the seller in the first instance...

Why did you complain to EO charging if you didn't buy it from them?

Okell said:

Knarf01 said:

... Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your statutory rights and remedies are enforceable against the seller, not the manufacturer. Accordingly, any claim under the Act should be directed to the seller in the first instance...

Why did you complain to EO charging if you didn't buy it from them?

To get confirmation of the permanent removal of smart features and a formal rejection of a remedy offer. A not strictly necessary step but will be useful to have if the supplier and/or credit card provider try to deflect to the manufacturers responsibility

PHK

Knarf01 said:

Okell said:

Knarf01 said:

... Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your statutory rights and remedies are enforceable against the seller, not the manufacturer. Accordingly, any claim under the Act should be directed to the seller in the first instance...

Why did you complain to EO charging if you didn't buy it from them?

Okell said:

Knarf01 said:

... Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, your statutory rights and remedies are enforceable against the seller, not the manufacturer. Accordingly, any claim under the Act should be directed to the seller in the first instance...

Why did you complain to EO charging if you didn't buy it from them?

To get confirmation of the permanent removal of smart features and a formal rejection of a remedy offer. A not strictly necessary step but will be useful to have if the supplier and/or credit card provider try to deflect to the manufacturers responsibility

This could backfire on you because you've involved the manufacture and have highlighted possible mitigation and that it's not the seller's fault. 

Generally, the advice is to leave the manufacturer alone unless there is a prospect or a quicker or more realistic resolution.