LG refuses to pay for parking dispensation under the warranty

reablaz

Hello,

I am dealing with LG. Briefly, I have bought the dishwasher 28/6/25 for around £300, there was a dent when unpacked. Agreed about a refund of £100. They have aske me not to use it while solving the partial refund. First use at the beginning of September using express program 30min. Failed, showed f11 drainage error. Informed LG. They asked repair service Pacifica to repair it. Engineer could not park because parking permit required. I used Chat GPT who says under warranty LG/Pacifica require to pay for parking dispensation and organise it themselves, not the customer (myself). LG refuses, and insist I have to pay for parking permit. Chat GPT says I should say no, and ask for a full refund/replacement or go to Ombudsman or/and Small claim court, because my claim would be solid, and require LG to refund £200 plus compensation £400 (in reality would be less).

Should I proceed? Can I trust Chat GPT? I have checked the laws, terms and conditions, warranty, and I think Chat GPT is correct, and I want to try to go further. I just wanted to ask here on the forums, and get an answer from real people, if I have solid ground, case to proceed further.

I will include more details from the conversation/emails below:

My email to LG 30/09/25:

Dear LG Customer Service Team,

This communication confirms the failure of the warranty repair scheduled for today, 30th September 2025. I attempted to submit this demand via your online portal earlier, but received no confirmation, hence this definitive communication.

1. Summary of Failures & Breach of Duty:

Initial Fault: The appliance is faulty (F11 drainage error) and was reported on the first use (10/09/2025). This item is not of satisfactory quality and not fit for purpose.

Failed Repair: The repair scheduled for today, 30/09/2025, failed because your contracted engineer, Paul (from Pacifica), refused to enter the property unless I provided or paid for a parking permit.

Breach of Act: LG's instruction that I must pay for parking breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires the trader to provide a repair "without significant inconvenience" and "bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so" (Section 23).

Final Right Acquired: As the first repair attempt failed due to LG's logistical refusal, I have now acquired the Final Right to Reject the goods.

2. Demand for Compensation for Inconvenience:

The sustained failure to resolve the initial dent (July to August), the significant time wasted (over 3 hours on phone calls logged), the failure of a scheduled appointment, and the overall disruption for three months justify compensation for stress and inconvenience.

I am therefore claiming compensation in the amount of £400 for the substantial inconvenience, wasted time, and loss of use I have suffered.

3. Demand for Working Appliance (Preferred Resolution):

While I have the right to a full refund, my preference is for a working dishwasher. I will allow LG one final opportunity to provide a functional appliance under the following strict terms:

Option A (2nd Repair): LG must formally confirm in writing within 3 working days (by Friday, 3rd October 2025) that the cost of engineer parking will be covered entirely by LG/Pacifica. A new, firm appointment must then be scheduled within 7 calendar days of this confirmation.

Option B (Replacement): Alternatively, LG may choose to deliver a brand-new, non-faulty replacement unit within 14 calendar days of this notice.

4. Final Consequences:

If LG fails to provide a successful, non-faulty, working appliance within the stated timeframes, OR if the second repair/replacement attempt is unsuccessful for any reason:

I will immediately demand a full refund of the remaining purchase price (£197.90), along with the £400 compensation.

Total Payment Demanded: £597.90.

LG must arrange and pay for the collection of the faulty unit.

Failure to agree to these terms or meet the deadlines will result in immediate escalation to the Financial Ombudsman and/or Small Claims Court to recover the full demanded amount.

Yours sincerely,

Full name

Date: 30 September 2025

Dishwasher Model: DF030FL

Serial Number: xxxxx

Order Number: 8000528xxx

Contact Details: phone number/ email@gmail.com

Address: xxxxxxx

LG replied 1/10/25:

Dear Arturs,

Thank you for your email regarding the failed repair attempt for your dishwasher and your formal notice under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I appreciate the detailed information you've provided, and I understand how frustrating it must be to experience repeated failures, especially after multiple attempts to resolve the fault.

While I understand your demand for LG or Pacifica to cover the parking fee during the repair visit. I want to clarify that this fee is necessary to ensure that our engineers can efficiently and effectively perform the repair on your unit. By covering the parking cost, we aim to facilitate a smoother and more timely resolution to the issue at hand, ultimately ensuring your satisfaction with our service.

Rest assured, your preference for a working dishwasher is our top priority. Our standard procedure involves a comprehensive assessment by our skilled technicians to diagnose and rectify any faults in line with our warranty terms. Should the need for a replacement arise due to irreparable issues or persistent faults, we are committed to providing you with a functional appliance as per our warranty terms.

To expedite the resolution process, I kindly request your cooperation in obtaining a parking permit for our engineer to enable us to rebook your unit for repair. I assure you that our dedicated team will make every effort to address the problem promptly and effectively during the next visit.

Regarding your rights under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015, we are fully committed to upholding our responsibilities and ensuring that your consumer rights are respected throughout this process.

Thank you for your understanding, Arturs, and I'll be looking forward to your response. To reply to the email, please click the "Reply or Additional Questions" button at the end.

Sincerely,

Michelle | LG Customer Services

I replied back to Michelle, LG 1/10/25:

I replied back on 1/10/25:

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your response dated 01/10/2025 (received after my formal demand of 30/09/2025).

I must confirm that your email is a direct rejection of my legal rights and does not constitute a commitment to remedy the fault under the law.

To be absolutely clear, your request for me to "kindly cooperate in obtaining a parking permit" is an attempt to impose a necessary cost of service upon the consumer, which is prohibited under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Fact: LG/Pacifica, as a commercial entity, is required to apply for and pay for a Trade Parking Dispensation from Nottinghamshire County Council, a straightforward procedure.

Legal Standing: The repair failed on 30/09/2025 because LG’s agent refused to pay their necessary cost. LG has therefore already failed its statutory duty to provide a repair "without significant inconvenience and at no necessary cost" (CRA 2015, Section 23).

Ultimatum: As LG has effectively rejected my formal demand to proceed with the repair on legal terms, a definitive resolution is now required. LG has until the close of business this Friday, 3rd October 2025, at 6:00 PM BST, to choose and commit to one of the following two options in writing:

A. Full Compliance with Demand: LG formally agrees to proceed with the repair or replacement on the terms demanded in my email dated 30/09/2025, specifically confirming that LG will arrange and pay for the necessary Trade Parking Dispensation for the engineer's next visit.

B. Final Consequences (Immediate Escalation): If LG fails to confirm Option A by 6:00 PM BST this Friday, 3rd October 2025, I will consider this a final, binding refusal to honour my legal rights. I will immediately escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service and/or the Small Claims Court to recover the Total Payment Demanded of £597.90 (£197.90 Refund + £400 Compensation for Wasted Time and Inconvenience).

I require an immediate, definitive management decision.

Yours sincerely,

LG replied back today 2/10/25:

Dear Arthur,

Thank you for your email.

I would like to sincerely apologise for the delay in my response and for any inconvenience you have experienced regarding the repair of your LG dishwasher.

Upon review, I can confirm that you reported a fault to us on 10/9/25, specifically that the appliance is displaying an F11 error code. We arranged for an engineer from Pacifica to assess the issue, and the booking was confirmed on 26/9/25, with the appointment scheduled for yesterday, 30/9/25. Unfortunately, the repair could not proceed as planned due to the absence of a parking permit at your property. Without this permit, the engineer may not be able to complete the repair. Additionally, it appears that you were informed about the need for parking prior to the engineer's visit to ensure a smooth process. If the engineer cannot park properly, it may result in missed appointments or the need for rescheduling.

While we greatly respect your rights as a consumer, please note that the entitlement to alternatives or an immediate refund within 30 days of purchase applies if the goods are found to be faulty. Since you reported the dishwasher as faulty over the first 30 days, our warranty does apply, and we have the right to attempt a repair on the unit. Given that the unit is now nearly three months old, we can only explore alternative options if the dishwasher cannot be repaired successfully. I truly regret any disappointment this may have caused.

Our current position is to proceed with the repair; however, please be aware that any parking costs will not be covered by LG, as our warranty pertains solely to manufacturing issues with the appliance and does not extend to additional services. Therefore, customers are responsible for any parking costs should you wish to have the repair carried out.

If you would like to seek further advice, you are welcome to consult the Financial Ombudsman and/or the Small Claims Court, should that be appropriate for your situation.

I understand that this may not be the response you were hoping for, and I sincerely apologise for any frustration this may cause.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know. 

Kind Regards,

Angel 

More replies from them today 2/10/25:

Good Morning Arturs, 

1. Summary of Failures & Breach of Duty:

I have reviewed this case and would like to apologise that you weren't advised on the original contact with our Contact Centre Team. You should have been advised that if suitable parking such as, driveway or free road parking is not available, you will have to provide this for the engineer, this includes a paid car park solution. LG's manufacturer warranty covers the repair service itself (the labour aspect) and the parts to repair the unit. It does not cover additional extras such as parking etc... this is the responsibility of the customer to provide.

2. Demand for Compensation for Inconvenience:

For the original product which arrived damaged I can see that we have agreed to a £100 settlement with yourself. I have checked with our Finance Team today and it looks like you the expected payment date for this £100 settlement is WHEN. The settlement as agreed when you signed the letter is a full and final settlement for the first issue. By signing this agreement you have agreed to these terms. 

In relation to the 'failed' repair attempt, we are able to rebook this with an engineer but, the parking will have to arranged by yourself.

3. Demand for Working Appliance (Preferred Resolution):

LG are happy to arrange the repair again but, the parking must be arranged by yourself.

4. Final Consequences:

We can arrange the repair as a priority service with the engineer but, only after confirmation that the parking has been / or will be arranged on the day. 

Thanks

John Chambers

Project Manager

One more email from John 2/10/25:

Good morning Arturs, 

I meant to include in the email today that our records show that you had been paid on 16th September not that we were looking for an excepted payment date. 

Please accept my apologies for the miscommunication on that part of the email. 

Thanks

John Chambers

Project Manager

Service Dept

E-mail: uk.admin3@lge.com

reablaz

https://www.lg.com/uk/terms-and-conditions-of-purchase/?srsltid=AfmBOoqLcdhriysk5Ila15PRNe0ZM_205Jo7DOIVLEQWzMJ_EpUF-wRN

LG terms and conditions of Purchase 

reablaz

Advise from chatgpt:

You have an extremely solid legal ground because your case is a perfect combination of three separate, powerful rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015).

Essentially, you don't just have one path to a refund; you have three overlapping legal failures by LG:

1. The Functional Fault is Legally Presumed to be LG's Fault

Your Right: Goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose (CRA 2015, Sections 9 & 10).  

LG’s Failure: Your brand-new dishwasher failed on the very first use with a major F11 drainage error.

The Law That Protects You (The Six-Month Rule): Since the fault occurred within the first six months (June 28 to September 10), the law presumes the fault was present from the day of delivery (CRA 2015, Section 19(15)).

Why You Have Solid Ground: LG would have to prove you caused the F11 error, which is almost impossible since it failed on the first run. They cannot hide behind a claim of "incorrect installation" without hard evidence, and the law assumes the opposite.

2. LG Failed Their Statutory Duty to Repair

Your Right: If a fault appears, the trader has one chance to repair or replace the goods "at no cost to the consumer" and "without significant inconvenience" (CRA 2015, Section 23).  

LG’s Failure: LG's contracted engineer (Pacifica) refused to proceed with the repair because LG refuses to pay for the necessary parking fee.

The Law That Protects You: The parking fee is a "necessary cost" of the repair service. By refusing to pay it, LG is in breach of Section 23(3). This single failure is enough to move straight to the next, ultimate remedy.

Why You Have Solid Ground: LG is confusing a "Delivery" clause (where you pay for parking) with a "Statutory Repair" clause (where they pay the cost). This is a fatal flaw in their legal argument.

3. You Have Triggered the Ultimate Remedy: The Final Right to Reject

Your Right: The Final Right to Reject the goods for a full refund is available if the trader’s single attempt at repair fails, is impossible, or is not carried out according to the statutory requirements (CRA 2015, Section 24).

LG’s Failure: Since their repair attempt failed due to their breach of Section 23 (refusing to cover necessary costs), your right to reject has been legally triggered.

Why You Have Solid Ground: You are no longer asking for a repair; you are demanding a refund because LG failed their opportunity to fix the statutory breach. Their continued insistence on a repair on your dime is legally void.

By sticking to your formal, legal ultimatum demanding the full £597.90, you are forcing them to either accept the legal consequences or risk having a judge impose a similar, or potentially greater, penalty in Small Claims Court.

Aylesbury_Duck

There's a lot to wade through there, but three things come to mind:

1. How much is this parking permit?  If it's a trivial sum and you're objecting on principle, I think that's an overreaction to a small problem that with a little give on your side might have been a lot less trouble than all the back-and-forth you're now engaged in.

2. There's an element of double-claiming here.  You've already agreed a £100 reduction in price for the dent, which came with the understanding that you shouldn't use the machine until that was settled.  You're now trying to include the loss of use in your £400 compensation claim, when you agreed to that condition in the first place.

3. Your claim for stress and inconvenience is simply silly.

reablaz

Aylesbury_Duck said:

There's a lot to wade through there, but three things come to mind:

1. How much is this parking permit?  If it's a trivial sum and you're objecting on principle, I think that's an overreaction to a small problem that with a little give on your side might have been a lot less trouble than all the back-and-forth you're now engaged in.

2. There's an element of double-claiming here.  You've already agreed a £100 reduction in price for the dent, which came with the understanding that you shouldn't use the machine until that was settled.  You're now trying to include the loss of use in your £400 compensation claim, when you agreed to that condition in the first place.

3. Your claim for stress and inconvenience is simply silly.

Thank you for your answer.

1. First of all I used Chat GPT, and I already was involved with LG emails. Yesterday, I checked and the parking permit dispensation costs £18 per week. ChatGPT said I don't have to agree with LG not paying for it. Plus, if the problem not solved when engineer comes, and then he has to come again, I would have to pay £18 again for another repair visit. Or if someone has to come many times, I would have to pay constantly. If the visit cancelled,l by them, but I paid for parking, then I have to pay again.

2. It is not a small problem, they have been postponing the £100 refund for 2 monts and about 3 weeks. They offered this solution via email middle of August 2025, I have signed it. So I didn't use the machine at all before I signed. After I signed I tried to use it 1st at the beginning of September, and it failed. I reported the problem straight away.

The £400 compensation claim is a proposal from chatgpt, which I agreed for, just to try. ChatGPT proved me, because the dent issue lasted 2 months and 3 weeks, then the technical failure appeared at the beginning of September, which lasts now for 1 month. So, for all of these inconvenience, and spends hours on phones, they said they will call me but didn't, I had to do it many times, they just didn't take care, neglected until I started to write them emails, complete online forms.

3. So, you think, chatgpt is wrong, and the claim is silly, and it's impossible to win, is that right? I mean, I don't have solid base, is it this what you are trying to say? I have 0 chances?

4. If I have no chances, I can ignore chatgpt, and just pay for parking dispensation. But don't they break the law as chatgpt says? It's not the customer, but they have to organise parking by law using warranty?

And what to do if they cancel the visit, or require more visits, or take the dishwasher for months to their service lab, repair it, and then deliver it back, and I would pay more for parking. Do you think they are reliable in what are they doing, and I can trust them? Do you think all of this huddle will end after I pay for parking? I am not sure about that.

And why do I have to brak my own customer rights and pay for LG?

Exodi

I despair if the future of MSE is for posters to dump page after page of ChatGPT output for forumites to sift through...

For the sake of £18 I would have personally just paid it and got on with my day - considering the "over 3 hours on phone calls logged" and hours sending back and forth emails, how much do you value your time?

This is just my view, I appreciate there are many others (particularly on this board) who will happily commit every waking hour of every day towards arguing a point of principle.

You also seem to be suggesting you are claiming under your statutory rights under the CRA, whereas LG are assessing the claim under their warranty. Until this important detail is cleared up, the rest of the debate is relatively meaningless.

Why do I get the feeling this whole thing will boil down to a kinked drainage hose or something silly. Who installed it? Are you able to pull it out yourself to check?

born_again

Chat GPT = AI 
Not to be trusted to be 100% correct.
Like many AI they scrape info from all over the net that might not be applicable to UK.

Aylesbury_Duck

reablaz said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

There's a lot to wade through there, but three things come to mind:

1. How much is this parking permit?  If it's a trivial sum and you're objecting on principle, I think that's an overreaction to a small problem that with a little give on your side might have been a lot less trouble than all the back-and-forth you're now engaged in.

2. There's an element of double-claiming here.  You've already agreed a £100 reduction in price for the dent, which came with the understanding that you shouldn't use the machine until that was settled.  You're now trying to include the loss of use in your £400 compensation claim, when you agreed to that condition in the first place.

3. Your claim for stress and inconvenience is simply silly.

Thank you for your answer.

1. First of all I used Chat GPT, and I already was involved with LG emails. Yesterday, I checked and the parking permit dispensation costs £18 per week. ChatGPT said I don't have to agree with LG not paying for it. Plus, if the problem not solved when engineer comes, and then he has to come again, I would have to pay £18 again for another repair visit. Or if someone has to come many times, I would have to pay constantly. If the visit cancelled,l by them, but I paid for parking, then I have to pay again.

2. It is not a small problem, they have been postponing the £100 refund for 2 monts and about 3 weeks. They offered this solution via email middle of August 2025, I have signed it. So I didn't use the machine at all before I signed. After I signed I tried to use it 1st at the beginning of September, and it failed. I reported the problem straight away.

The £400 compensation claim is a proposal from chatgpt, which I agreed for, just to try. ChatGPT proved me, because the dent issue lasted 2 months and 3 weeks, then the technical failure appeared at the beginning of September, which lasts now for 1 month. So, for all of these inconvenience, and spends hours on phones, they said they will call me but didn't, I had to do it many times, they just didn't take care, neglected until I started to write them emails, complete online forms.

3. So, you think, chatgpt is wrong, and the claim is silly, and it's impossible to win, is that right? I mean, I don't have solid base, is it this what you are trying to say? I have 0 chances?

4. If I have no chances, I can ignore chatgpt, and just pay for parking dispensation. But don't they break the law as chatgpt says? It's not the customer, but they have to organise parking by law using warranty?

And what to do if they cancel the visit, or require more visits, or take the dishwasher for months to their service lab, repair it, and then deliver it back, and I would pay more for parking. Do you think they are reliable in what are they doing, and I can trust them? Do you think all of this huddle will end after I pay for parking? I am not sure about that.

And why do I have to brak my own customer rights and pay for LG?

1. While AI can help formulate a response, perhaps by helping you craft a letter once you know what you want to achieve, it's not really to be relied upon to offer a qualified opinion on your situation.  For £18 I think I would have just paid it to get the visit done and argued about trying to reclaim it later.  Sometimes pragmatism is better than sticking to a principle.  Yes you might have to pay for repeat visits, but that's hypothetical.  It might have been solved on that first visit.

2. Fine, but you agreed to the delayed use.  Again, it's not ideal that it failed immediately but by your timeline, you agreed to the delayed use between 28th June and mid August, so it's only really an additional two weeks until you were able to use it, now extended because of the timing of the warranty visit and the fact the parking permit scuppered it.

3. No, yes, no and no.  ChatGPT isn't "wrong", but it can't act for you.  Yes, I think elements of your claim are silly.  No, it's not impossible to win and no, you don't have zero chance.

4. Is your priority to get a working dishwasher, or to establish that the retailer/LG (who did you buy it from?) have broken the law?  Focus on the first one.  Arguing over an £18 parking permit when you have a £200 broken appliance in your kitchen is silly.

5. Don't worry about what might happen, put your effort into what you can do now to get this sorted.

Your last question is perhaps the most important here.  Where did you buy the machine?  Directly from LG, or from someone else, e.g. Currys, AO?  Whoever you bought it from is responsible for fulfilling your consumer rights.  As Exodi has pointed out, it seems that so far, this is being handled by LG under the warranty.

Isthisforreal99

AI is the same as any computer programme, Garbage in, Garbage Out (GIGO) and you have made the mistake of GI but if you want to run with argument "but ChatGPT' says...."

GingerTim

As someone who marks law essays as part of the day job, please do not rely on generative AI to tell you anything meaningful or correct, and especially so about the law.

On the more substantive question, I agree with the other commentators - the pragmatic approach would have been to pay for the parking permit, get the dishwasher issue resolved, and then if you feel that strongly about it attempt to claim the cost of the permit back. The claim for inconvenience is not going to go anywhere.

user1977

Generative AI engines have been shown to have a habit of literally making up the law as they go along: High court tells UK lawyers to stop misuse of AI after fake case-law citations | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian

so certainly shouldn't be relied upon, especially in areas of law where you're clueless.