Used washing machine fully broken down in 3 months, company refusing CRA2015

danndanndanndann

I purchased a machine from renew2u for £200, from their ebay page and within the first 3 months is fully broke down. This is the stupid part on my end and i know it's diminished my chance of getting money back, i opened a paypal claim and after they stated to me they wouldnt do anything with repairing the machine while the claim was there and that could take a long time, i dropped the case. I know very stupid however i hoped as they were a proper company it meant i could have the machine fixed sooner

As the messages and claims have lasted longer than 3 months they are fighting against this claim saying it's out of the 3 month warranty they provided. I've been trying to fight this to no avail

I decided to use the CRA2015 as i figured they couldnt argue against that with it being law, this is what they have replied to me in an email

Consumer Rights Act 2015: While the CRA provides protection for consumers, the Act also distinguishes between new, refurbished, and used goods. For used goods, reasonable wear and tear is expected, and we are not under obligation to repair or replace the item unless fault can be proven to have existed at the time of sale.

We have reviewed the communications you referenced. While our team attempted to provide assistance, there is no evidence that the item was faulty at the time of sale beyond what is reasonable for a used appliance.

They haven't sent anyone to look at the machine and are just stating as it's used i should expect it to have wear and tear and they state there is no evidence it was fault

I'm really just wondering where to go from here? I'm guessing the only course of action is to go to trading standards or small claims court? Or is that actually worth it and just put this to a lesson on not dropping the case

eskbanker

danndanndanndann said:

I decided to use the CRA2015 as i figured they couldnt argue against that with it being law, this is what they have replied to me in an email

Consumer Rights Act 2015: While the CRA provides protection for consumers, the Act also distinguishes between new, refurbished, and used goods. For used goods, reasonable wear and tear is expected, and we are not under obligation to repair or replace the item unless fault can be proven to have existed at the time of sale.

We have reviewed the communications you referenced. While our team attempted to provide assistance, there is no evidence that the item was faulty at the time of sale beyond what is reasonable for a used appliance.

They haven't sent anyone to look at the machine and are just stating as it's used i should expect it to have wear and tear and they state there is no evidence it was fault

Faults identified within six months are assumed to have been present at the time of purchase, unless the retailer can demonstrate otherwise, i.e. they have the burden of proof:

(14) For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

I'm not aware of any exemption to this as a result of goods being second hand, but happy to be corrected on that!

Grumpy_chap

For used purchases, the age, condition, price paid etc has to be considered in terms of what is a reasonable expectation in terms of how the product purchased performs and durability.  The most common time this nature of query arises is in the Motoring areas of these forums, perhaps for obvious reasons.

However, the OP has paid £200 for a used washing machine.  Curry's list two washing machines available brand new for under £200.  While the OP's washing machine may have more features, faster spin cycle, better energy efficiency and such like, set against the alternative options that the OP had for a brand new washing machine, I would consider that the reasonable expectation of the OP's second hand washing machine would be quite high and not far off the expectation of new in terms of durability.

I'd also consider that as this fault has developed within 6 months, then the fault is deemed to have been present or developing at the time of purchase.  The company running the clock down against their warranty provided is not helpful but perhaps indicates the nature of the organisation that the OP is dealing with.  It is one thing having consumer rights apparently in the OP's favour and another enforcing them.

What is the nature of the fault that has developed?
Is it an easy fix?
I assume it is not something of a "routine" nature such as a blocked filter, kinked hose or such like?

danndanndanndann

Grumpy_chap said:

For used purchases, the age, condition, price paid etc has to be considered in terms of what is a reasonable expectation in terms of how the product purchased performs and durability.  The most common time this nature of query arises is in the Motoring areas of these forums, perhaps for obvious reasons.

However, the OP has paid £200 for a used washing machine.  Curry's list two washing machines available brand new for under £200.  While the OP's washing machine may have more features, faster spin cycle, better energy efficiency and such like, set against the alternative options that the OP had for a brand new washing machine, I would consider that the reasonable expectation of the OP's second hand washing machine would be quite high and not far off the expectation of new in terms of durability.

I'd also consider that as this fault has developed within 6 months, then the fault is deemed to have been present or developing at the time of purchase.  The company running the clock down against their warranty provided is not helpful but perhaps indicates the nature of the organisation that the OP is dealing with.  It is one thing having consumer rights apparently in the OP's favour and another enforcing them.

What is the nature of the fault that has developed?
Is it an easy fix?
I assume it is not something of a "routine" nature such as a blocked filter, kinked hose or such like?

The machine itself is completely bricked. Won’t turn on at all and no power, which makes it even more crazy they are suggesting it’s normal wear and tear 

fter explaining to them I had contacted citizens advice and taking standards about the case and how they are going against the CRA2015 they offered to send a part to fix the machine as a “gesture of goodwill that takes no responsibility for fault” and I would have to pay to fix it. After ignoring that and sending my final letter as you advised they have now offered another “gesture of goodwill” they offered to arrange a collection for inspection and repair, however it no sign of customer misuse or fault is found, a standard collection and delivery fee at apply. 

Obviously I don’t agree with either of these solutions as it’s been over a month now and way past reasonable time, I’ve also asked them to repair it multiple times already and been refused

so now it looks like small claims court is next  

danndanndanndann

Didn’t mean “as you advised”, I copied the same messages I had sent trading standards 

Aylesbury_Duck

danndanndanndann said:

Grumpy_chap said:

For used purchases, the age, condition, price paid etc has to be considered in terms of what is a reasonable expectation in terms of how the product purchased performs and durability.  The most common time this nature of query arises is in the Motoring areas of these forums, perhaps for obvious reasons.

However, the OP has paid £200 for a used washing machine.  Curry's list two washing machines available brand new for under £200.  While the OP's washing machine may have more features, faster spin cycle, better energy efficiency and such like, set against the alternative options that the OP had for a brand new washing machine, I would consider that the reasonable expectation of the OP's second hand washing machine would be quite high and not far off the expectation of new in terms of durability.

I'd also consider that as this fault has developed within 6 months, then the fault is deemed to have been present or developing at the time of purchase.  The company running the clock down against their warranty provided is not helpful but perhaps indicates the nature of the organisation that the OP is dealing with.  It is one thing having consumer rights apparently in the OP's favour and another enforcing them.

What is the nature of the fault that has developed?
Is it an easy fix?
I assume it is not something of a "routine" nature such as a blocked filter, kinked hose or such like?

The machine itself is completely bricked. Won’t turn on at all and no power, which makes it even more crazy they are suggesting it’s normal wear and tear 

fter explaining to them I had contacted citizens advice and taking standards about the case and how they are going against the CRA2015 they offered to send a part to fix the machine as a “gesture of goodwill that takes no responsibility for fault” and I would have to pay to fix it. After ignoring that and sending my final letter as you advised they have now offered another “gesture of goodwill” they offered to arrange a collection for inspection and repair, however it no sign of customer misuse or fault is found, a standard collection and delivery fee at apply. 

Obviously I don’t agree with either of these solutions as it’s been over a month now and way past reasonable time, I’ve also asked them to repair it multiple times already and been refused

so now it looks like small claims court is next  

What's wrong with that proposal?  Seems fair enough, and you're confident it's properly broken rather than having been damaged by you.  They're entitled to check the fault themselves rather than just taking your word for it.

I assume you've checked the obvious things like the fuse in the plug, and tried a different socket?

sheramber

If no fault is found then charging fir collecting aa
nd delivering back to you seems reasonable. 

A_Geordie

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's wrong with that proposal?  Seems fair enough, and you're confident it's properly broken rather than having been damaged by you.  They're entitled to check the fault themselves rather than just taking your word for it.

What’s right with the proposal? Who’s to say the retailer won’t concoct a story that the washing machine was a user fault rather than an actual fault, just to get out of liability? 

Regardless, the test under the Consumer Rights Act is for the retailer to prove that the washing machine confirmed on the day the contract was created not at any point after that. 

Presumably the retailer would have done its testing of the machine and the parts were all in working order prior to it being delivered to the OP. That might be sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof if evidence is provided but if not, then the law assumes it’s faulty from day 1. 

Of course, age of the machine should be taken into account amongst other things but there should be a reasonable expectation that the machine will last a reasonable period after purchase. 

sheramber

A_Geordie said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's wrong with that proposal?  Seems fair enough, and you're confident it's properly broken rather than having been damaged by you.  They're entitled to check the fault themselves rather than just taking your word for it.

What’s right with the proposal? Who’s to say the retailer won’t concoct a story that the washing machine was a user fault rather than an actual fault, just to get out of liability? 

Regardless, the test under the Consumer Rights Act is for the retailer to prove that the washing machine confirmed on the day the contract was created not at any point after that. 

Presumably the retailer would have done its testing of the machine and the parts were all in working order prior to it being delivered to the OP. That might be sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof if evidence is provided but if not, then the law assumes it’s faulty from day 1. 

Of course, age of the machine should be taken into account amongst other things but there should be a reasonable expectation that the machine will last a reasonable period after purchase. 

There is always the risk,   in any claim , that the retailer will claim a user error unless the buyer gets there own independent investigation to confirm what the fault is.  

A_Geordie

sheramber said:

There is always the risk,   in any claim , that the retailer will claim a user error unless the buyer gets there own independent investigation to confirm what the fault is.  

Absolutely right, but why would you allow them to inspect it when that option goes beyond what you are required to do under consumer rights laws?  

Nothing in the CRA says that the retailer has a right to inspect the suspected faulty goods or for user error before confirming whether they are indeed faulty - it is not a subjective obligation that the retailer gets to decide. Either they prove the goods conformed at the time of the contract or they didn’t. 

Grumpy_chap

danndanndanndann said:

The machine itself is completely bricked. Won’t turn on at all and no power

Have you checked the obvious, like try a different plug socket?
Check the fuse in the plug?

danndanndanndann said:

they offered to send a part to fix the machine as a “gesture of goodwill that takes no responsibility for fault” and I would have to pay to fix it.

they offered to arrange a collection for inspection and repair, however it no sign of customer misuse or fault is found, a standard collection and delivery fee at apply. 

Obviously I don’t agree with either of these solutions as it’s been over a month now and way past reasonable time, I’ve also asked them to repair it multiple times already and been refused

so now it looks like small claims court is next  

It seems as though you are refusing their reasonable proposals.

They have offered to send the part to fix the machine for you to fit.  (This means there must have been more discussion about what the fault is so they know what part to send.)

They have offered to collect the machine, inspect and repair.  Only if it transpires to be your fault will they charge you.  That appears to satisfy the requirement that the fault was deemed to be present at the point of sale unless demonstrated otherwise.  The supplier is allowed to do the inspection that might demonstrate otherwise.

Obviously, the devil is in the detail.  I appear to agree with @Aylesbury_Duck and @sheramber but appear to be disagreeing with @A_Geordie

As I read it at present, the OP has viable solutions offered by a co-operative seller but the OP seems to want to prefer to have their day in court.