Faulty washing machine - less than 6 months - CRA 2015

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

QrizB said:

Beko / Hotpoint (all the same company) messaged me on Tuesday with a service engineer appointment for this morning.

The engineer turned up on schedule. Seemed a nice guy, had been in the business for 15 years, said my machine was the first of "the new ones" he'd been called out to. Checked the error codes on the diagnostic menu; it was showing a fault wth the spin sensor. The sensor itself was fine, so (per the script on his iPad-thing) he replaced the motor controller (he had one on his van).

He was finished in about 35 minutes, had fixed two machines before mine and had another four to do for the day!

The machine is currently washing a load; hopefully it will complete a couple of hours from now.

Good to hear QrizB  

As you've gone via the retailer any further issues and you can reject if you don't wish to have a further repair/replace. 

Shame they have that bit on their website about the 30 days as it seems all they've had to do is pass the matter over themselves rather than you doing the leg work. 

Jumblebumble

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

As CC are not experts in these or any other devices then they need a expert to prove there is a issue. Report would be refunded if S75 claim is paid.

They really should commission their own  

Who do you think should pay for this?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jumblebumble said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

As CC are not experts in these or any other devices then they need a expert to prove there is a issue. Report would be refunded if S75 claim is paid.

They really should commission their own  

Who do you think should pay for this?

Same as the other way round really, the bank pays for it, if it confirms the goods were fault free the customer will need to stump up the money for the inspection. 

Jumblebumble

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Jumblebumble said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

As CC are not experts in these or any other devices then they need a expert to prove there is a issue. Report would be refunded if S75 claim is paid.

They really should commission their own  

Who do you think should pay for this?

Same as the other way round really, the bank pays for it, if it confirms the goods were fault free the customer will need to stump up the money for the inspection. 

How does the bank obtain the money from the inevitable customers who wont pony up?
Why would the bank want to pay anyone for this?
They have not asked for any contact from the OP

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jumblebumble said:

How does the bank obtain the money from the inevitable customers who wont pony up?
Why would the bank want to pay anyone for this?
They have not asked for any contact from the OP

How does the customer obtain the money from the retailer/bank when they have to get an inspection? 

I don't think the bank wants to pay it.

They have asked for contact by becoming a bank and lending the customer money resulting in the obligation to abide by Section 75.

If someone comes here and says their widget broke after 6 months they are told they need an inspection and the cost should be covered if in their favour.

CRA has so called reverse burden of proof within the first 6 months and so the opposite applies, i.e it is taken the goods do not conform and if the retailer wishes to demonstrate otherwise they need to obtain the required proof.

Section 75 holds the credit provider jointly liable, Section 31(1) of the CRA prevents a term from excluding liability for Sections 9 through 17 as well as 28 and 29 which also means that a term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict a right or remedy in respect of a liability under a provision listed in subsection (1)

Which bit would mean the customer is obligated to obtain the required burden of proof when making a Section 75 claim within the first 6 months but not have to do this when dealing with the retailer?