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

sheramber

Your contract with the KC was for the original freezer.

The freezer you have now is not the one on that contract. It has a different serial number and is a different freezer.

Do not rely on AI. It is often wrong.

You ask for the opinion of forum members. They have given it.

And that is all it is, their opinion, which differs from yours.

You are free to pursue your case against the KC if you wish.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886453#Comment_81886453

Did you actually contact the kitchen company when the fridge broke down, or did you go to the manufacturer based upon the contract / warranty agreement offered by the kitchen company?

Is it certain that there is one contract for the kitchen with the kitchen company as one lump sum? Sometimes there is an agreement "design, supply, install kitchen" and sometime the kitchen companies actually cut the agreement so "design kitchen", "supply kitchen units", "supply kitchen electricals", "install kitchen" are all actually separate contracts even though the kitchen company has facilitated these packages. It is not always obvious to the consumer which type of arrangement applies.

Finally, what is the actual fault that keep recurring? Fridge freezers are relatively simple devices and not the latest technology so it is unusual to have a part that fails repeatedly on two fridges of the same model.

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886537#Comment_81886537

Yes, on each occasion I contacted the kitchen company and they referred me to the manufacturers to claim under the guarantee. On the 2nd occasions when I demanded a replacement, and the warranty provider refused this, I went through the kitchen company and they liaised with their wholesalers and the manufacturers and told me that I was getting a replacement. Nothing was said about it affecting my statutory rights and I said that if it was not resolved I would be claiming against my CRA 15 rights with the kitchen company.

The white goods were all included within the kitchen package and not itemised separately price wise. The price included installation and removal of the old products and packaging.

It was the control panel, it showed -18 but was actually 0, reviews on the manufacturers own website since we purchased it, show multiple users with the same issue. You would open the freezer door, no warning pings or signs on the control panel to say door had been left open or user error and we would find our produce defrosted. We purchased an independent thermometer and that said 0. It happened the exact same way three times.

Also the freezer was supposed to be frost free and the selling blurb said we would never need to defrost again. There was no build up of frost but each engineer told us we needed to defrost it every 6mths and the manufacturer put this in the whatsapp chat that we saved.

KJAVW

No need to be short, I didn't rely on AI I also read the CRA 2015 and spoke to a solicitor, but it wasn't worth employing a solicitor to argue for the money concerned .

I appreciate other peoples input, that is why I am asking but I am allowed to question it, that is what a forum is for surely? This is my rationale and constructive feedback, criticism is welcome but I NEED to understand why so I can consider changing my viewpoint, if that is where it goes so….

1. My contract is with the kitchen company and NOT the manufacturer

• I bought a kitchen, including the freezer, as a single package from the kitchen company. They only accept cash of bank transfer so I cannot claim against a bank.
• Under UK consumer law (Consumer Rights Act 2015), my legal rights always sit with the retailer who sold me goods, not the manufacturer.
• The manufacturer can offer a warranty, but that’s optional goodwill — it does not replace the retailer’s (kitchen companies) legal obligations. The retailer confirms this in their contract by saying that nothing in the contract affects my rights under CRA15.
• Even if the manufacturer touches the product later, the kitchen company remains responsible for supplying goods that are of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and durable.

2. A Manufacturers replacement does NOT transfer responsibility

My understanding is that when the manufacturer replaced the freezer:

• They were acting under their own warranty, not under my contract.
• The replacement freezer having a different serial number does not break or replace my contract with the kitchen company.
• It also does not create a new contract between me and the manufacturer. And no-one said it did. I made it clear to the Kitchen Company I held them responsible.

Its my understanding that legally, the freezer — original or replacement — is still considered part of the goods supplied under my original contract with the kitchen company. And this is how I think of it: If a retailer sells me a faulty washing machine and the manufacturer swaps it, the retailer is still responsible if the replacement also fails. The serial number doesn’t matter; the obligation stays with the retailer.

3. The kitchen company is responsible because the freezer they supplied (as part of the kitchen) has not lasted a reasonable time

• Built‑in appliances are expected to last several years.
• Mine failed repeatedly.
• That means the goods supplied under the contract were not durable, which is a breach of the Consumer Rights Act.
• The manufacturer stepping in doesn’t erase the retailer’s duty to supply me durable goods.
• I have no idea who funded the replacement and how. It was arrange by the kitchen company but it had to be installed by the manufacturer otherwise it would have voided the terms of their warranty.

4. The manufacturers replacement was a repair attempt, not a NEW purchase.

• I didn't buy or agree a new contract when they replaced my original freezer, this was arranged by the kitchen company as a repair or remedy, not a new sale.
• A repair that fails simply means the original fault was never properly resolved.
• Therefore, the retailer remains liable for providing a proper remedy (replacement or refund). They had provided a replacement for the 2nd failure but that also failed in the same way.

born_again

No need to be short, I didn't rely on AI I also read the CRA 2015 and spoke to a solicitor, but it wasn't worth employing a solicitor to argue for the money concerned .

I appreciate other peoples input, that is why I am asking but I am allowed to question it, that is what a forum is for surely? This is my rationale and constructive feedback, criticism is welcome but I NEED to understand why so I can consider changing my viewpoint, if that is where it goes so….

Correct, you can question anything people say here. We are but members of the public.

No offence, given that you had already spoken to solicitor, who must have given the advice to now take this to court.

Why then ask here?

MSE cover it nicely

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs/

Don't rely – verify!

Our Forum offers a wealth of MoneySaving wisdom, tips, hints and information both new and historical. However, some of the information changes quickly, is opinion or may be incorrect. We don't verify or take responsibility for what is posted by the community. No two people have the same circumstances or experience and it is up to you to investigate, check and check again before you make any decisions or take any action based on information you glean from our community. Remember, don't rely on what you are reading. Verify it and protect yourself. You are responsible for any action you consequently make.

Ergates

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

This is the position I'd take too.

If the customers just goes straight to the manufacturer (i.e. doesn't speak to the retailer) and gets a replacement then I'd accept the retailers position.

BUT - if (as seems to be the case here) the customer first approaches the retailer and the retailer says "OK, can you speak to the manufacturer about this" then I don't accept that the retailer can then turn around and say "Well the manufacturer has replaced the item so we're no longer responsible for it" - because this only happened because the retailer directed the customer to the manufacturer. Essentially, this would be the retailer tricking the customer into voiding their consumer rights- which doesn't seem right.

If this allowed retailers to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities, then our general advice would have to be "Never ever accept a replacement under warranty, even if the retailer asks you do, because it will negate your consumer rights"

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886688#Comment_81886688

I have spoken to a solicitor as I have stated where I make my comment about AI, and he agrees with my stance but I have to be reasonable with expenses when I go to a small claims court and I think its unfair to rack up thousands of pounds in legal support to go to a small claims court when I can do it myself. And on the downside, if I am wrong (I am no expert) I don't want to lose more money!

I am trying to verify my facts as its helpful to speak to people who have gone to the small claims court on stuff like this and find out what happened so I can make an informed opinion on the way forward.

The kitchen company are so sure they are right and it makes me doubt what I have read and been told. They have been in the business a lot of years and seem decent people but then I could be naïve. Its only normally to want to double check stuff.

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886716#Comment_81886716

Thank you, this is my thinking as when I had the 2nd breakdown and the KC referred me to the manf again, I spoke with the manf and their was a problem with the warranty (their admin error), I had to go through the KC and I have the email trail where the KC tells me they will speak with the wholesaler and manufacturer and see what they can do.

Then the reply from the KC saying I will get a replacement (after the 2nd break down) and the manufacturer will be in touch shortly to arrange delivery. They did not say, and in fairness, I did not ask, who was funding this, just that I was getting the replacement. It was then passed back to me to liaise with the manf to arrange delivery.

On the third breakdown, I again wrote to the KC, they told me they were not liable and that it was the manf, I said the guarantee had expired and the Manf would not assist and basically the KC said it was tough cookies, then they came back and said that as the freezer had been replaced by the manf previously, all liability passed to the manf and not them. I disputed this and said my contract was with them, (which I did however query and clarify with the manf who advised me my consimer rights were with KC) and so I wrote to the KC advising of potential legal proceedings if no action taken within 7 days.

screech_78

What would you be claiming for in small claims court? If exercising your final right to reject, you need to remember that you cannot claim a full refund. After 6 months of purchase (the original purchase) a deduction will be made.

A_Geordie

Here's my opinion on the matter regarding your understanding.

#1 I would agree with this, except for the last bullet point insofar as it is not always straight forward. If there is a claim made to repair goods under a manufacturer warranty, any issue in relation to that repair would be be subject to the terms of the warranty, not your statutory rights.*

*This is where is becomes not so straight forward, because there may be an argument that, even if a manufacturer has performed a repair under warranty, the warranty repair does not override your statutory rights. So if a fault occurred again in relation to the repaired part by the manufacturer, you could then seek to exercise your consumer rights against KC. However, (a) it would not be treated as KC having already attempted a repair and (b) the rules around short term rejection, right to repair or replace within 6 months and burden of proof is on you after 6 months will apply.

#2 I agree except for bullet point 2. The replacement of the original freezer by the manufacturer doesn't break your contract with KC per se, but the Consumer Rights Act is built on goods that were supplied by the trader. In your case, you have chosen to seek a remedy under the manufacturer's warranty instead of against KC as the supplier under the CRA. In some occasions, certain remedies are more advantageous and on other occasions, your remedies may be extinguished by virtue of the actions you have taken previously.

One of the issues I foresee here is that to exercise a right of rejection, repair, replacement, refund or reduction in price, the fault has to be linked to the goods supplied by KC, but the goods have now been exchanged for the same model by the manufacturer, not by KC directly or under the instruction of KC (and what I mean by this is that KC liaised with manufacturer and asked them to repair/replace on KC's behalf), but instead it was instigated by you in claiming under the warranty.

#3 I agree but will qualify that with my response to #1 and #2 above.

#4 I don't agree. For the reasons already mentioned, the manufacturer warranty is an entirely separate legal right to your statutory rights under the CRA. In order for it to be classified as a repair/replacement attempt, the order to repair or replace would have had to come directly from KC. Instead, KC have re-directed you and explicitly referred to the manufacturer's warranty.

In my view, for you to have a claim under the CRA you would need to show that the repairs and replacement attempts were done under the instructions of KC and not you voluntarily choosing to exercise a warranty claim directly with the manufacturer, which is an independent right in of itself.

That said, I think you would have better luck claiming under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 for a misleading action (up to 100% refund). You may be able to argue that they mislead you into thinking that by re-directing you to the manufacturer when you wanted to exercise your consumer rights, the manufacturer would be acting on behalf of KC with regards to the repairs/replacements and not under the manufacturer warranty - that's assuming you weren't given any paperwork to sign or agree about the repair/replacement being under a manufacturer warranty.

I suspect any success against KC will turn on what exactly was communicated to them at the time.