Freezer failed several times, want a refund but who from? Manf or Retailer?

KJAVW

OK I purchased a new kitchen and as part of the installation, purchased new white goods including a tall upright integrated, frost free freezer which has broken down three times with the same fault.

It was purchased as part of the contract with the kitchen company (KC from now on) and they only accepted cash or bank transfers so no recourse through the bank. One of the selling points used by KC was that it came with a 2yr labour and 10 yr parts manufacturers guarantee.

The freezer failed on three separate occasions, each time with the same fault and the KC referred met o claim under the manufacturers warranty. The first failure occurred around seven months after installation and was repaired. The second failure occurred around twelve months after installation and resulted in a replacement freezer. The replacement freezer then failed again in the same way around month twenty-nine from the kitchen refurbishment but only 16 months after the new freezer was delivered.

In my mind, these repeated identical failures show that the freezer was not of satisfactory quality, not durable, and not fit for purpose, contrary to sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. On the manufacturers own site and on Trustpilot there are many reviews stating the same issue which further supports my claim that this is an inherent fault.

A repair and a replacement were both attempted and both failed. Under section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act, I therefore exercised my final right to reject the goods upon the third failure and ask the Kitchen company for a refund.

The Kitchen Companies position is that it has no liability because the manufacturer carried out the repair and replacement not them. My belief is that their position is incorrect. Statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act are against the seller, cannot be excluded by contract, and are expressly preserved by clause 25 of the the kitchen companies own terms which state nothing in the contract affects my statutory rights.

I believed that the manufacturer’s guarantee was additional to my statutory rights and did not replace the Kitchen companies obligations. The KC says the two options offered to me by the manufacturer are that either I pay for labour costs for their visit for the repair (its out of labour but not parts guarantee) or that I pay for a new warranty and they will then repair. But I do not want a repair, I am rejecting the freezer. I have lost three full loads of food and I have no faith it won't happen again.

In addition, the freezer was sold as ‘frost free’, as stated in the instruction manual. However, an attending engineer confirmed that it requires manual defrosting approximately every six months. The manufacturers customer service team have confirmed this by WhatsApp comment in their customer services chat. This means the freezer was not as described, contrary to section 11 of the Act.

The kitchen company are saying that as the freezer was replaced by the manufacturer, its not their responsibility to refund and the manufacturer is saying they can only repair under the terms of the warranty and my Consumer rights are with the Kitchen Company. In my head, I paid the kitchen company so they have to refund me.

Who is right please?

TadleyBaggie

Retailer is where your consumer rights lie with.

KJAVW

I'm all lined up to take this to the small claims court, or whatever its called now but what was throwing me, is that the owners seem really nice and have been in business for many years and I can't comprehend how they could not know they are responsible so that is what is making me hesitate. Am I missing something?

TadleyBaggie

Sorry I didn't read all your post. If the manufacturer replaced the unit, then the retailer is correct in saying it's not the item they sold you. This really complicates the situation. I await some other learned MSE comment.

Bottom line, you cannot pursue the manufacturer for a refund, unless their warranty allow for it.

born_again

If manufacture has replaced device. Then it is not the one you paid the KC for therefor any claim would be against the manufacture.

Was another thread along same lines not so long ago & that was the consensus.

PragmaticMoneySaver

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886391#Comment_81886391

But surely by the KC saying, "…and the KC referred met o claim under the manufacturers warranty…" this is them delegating their obligations to repair (as they're entitled to do) but any actions the manufacturer take, including replacement, are technically on behalf of the retailer.

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886409#Comment_81886409

And that is my view point. I paid the kitchen company for the freezer, on each occasion it broke down, they referred me to the manufacturer which was an "selling point" if you like but my contract is with the kitchen company and if the freezer fails, I paid them and not the manufacturer. Therefore if I want my money back the kitchen company has my money not the manufacturer so under the CRA 15 my rights are with the kitchen company. Their own contract with me says that nothing in the contract (which refers me to the manufacturers guarantee) affects my rights under CRA15. I can't sue the manufacturer for none performance of the product as my contract is not with them so my only option is the small claims court against the kitchen company.

If when the kitchen company, arranged for the manufacturer to replace the freezer on their behalf, I was told at the time, my contract was now with the manufacturer, they would have a point which I could have argued, but they can't do that as I purchased and formed a contract with the kitchen company. And the manufacturer has told me that my rights are with the kitchen company not them because they do not have a contract with me.

AI says I am right, I had a 30 mins free consultation with a solicitor who said I am right but I'm just hesitant because of the kitchen companies confidence and just looking for reassurance really.

KJAVW

But my contract is with the kitchen company and not the retailer and they cannot just hand off the obligations they made under that contract without consulting with me first surely. Had I been aware of this, I would have just asked for my money back from the retailer at the 2nd failure and not accepted the replacement. I paid the kitchen company, not the manufacturer so only they can give me the money back and then they would need to take the case up with their wholesaler surely.

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886457#Comment_81886457

They are not just "handing off" their obligations, but you chose to pursue your warranty claim via the manufacturer, you could have at any point before that pursued your consumer rights instead. There is a difference when the manufacturer acts on behalf of the seller, but that is exercising consumer rights, not exercising warranty. It is complicated, Lunatic will be the best person to guide you through how that works.

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886261#Comment_81886261

No, I cannot pursue the manufacturer as my contract for purchase of the freezer is with the kitchen company and not the manufacturer. If the kitchen company persuaded either their wholesaler (who they purchased it from) or the manufacturer to send me a replacement due to the issues, then that is at their request and it doesn't transfer the contract formed between me and the Kitchen company to provide me an item that is fit for purpose and as described. So my recourse should be with the kitchen company as per the terms of my contract with them that says nothing in the contract (including the manufacturers guarantee), overrides my consumer rights which are with the kitchen company not the manufacturer.

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886463#Comment_81886463

I didn't chose, I was directed by the kitchen company that this was how I must proceed and on each of the last 2 occasions I told them that if the guarantee failed I would chase them.