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

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886761#Comment_81886761

I have had to purchase a new freezer including installation and removal of rubbish. I will claim for the price of the freezer supplied by the kitchen company, accepting there maybe a deduction for use (more to follow), the legal expenses and potentially the final loss of food. It was not a cheap freezer. They can only say no for the food.

The manufacturers own guarantee covers parts for 10yrs so they must reasonably expect it to last that long and the industry standard seems to be about 10yrs. My new frost free freezer, which it turns out was never frost free, lasted 2.5 years and that is including the time it was not working and the repair and replacement. So I would hope to get a minimum of 3/4 of the original cost but would aim to mitigate reduction as I had been more than reasonable by accepting a repair and replacement before it failed again. I have offered for the KC to replace the freezer with a different brand and to examine the faulty freezer. Both where declined.

There is plenty of evidence that this is a known problem with the freezer as on the manufacturers own website and on Trustpilot, post my purchase, many other purchasers have had the same problem.

The freezer never fit the description of the item I purchased as in it didn't keep stuff frozen so was not durable or fit for purpose, it didn't fit the description as it wasn't frost free and so it wasn't fit for its purpose, which was safely freezing my food without having to defrost it every six months.

I lost three full loads of food due to an inherent fault and had numerous days of work in relation to their engineer visits and still did not have a working freezer.

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886783#Comment_81886783

That is really helpful in clarifying certain points and nuances and its much appreciated.

Point 2 bullet 2 - Just for clarification, I told the KC about the issue and they referred me to claim under the guarantee, and when speaking with the manf they would only repair and not replace as I requested and so I reverted to the KC and said I held them responsible under the terms of the contract. The document trail shows that the kitchen company arranged the replacement for me and I only got involved when it came to arranging delivery.

Point 4 - hopefully the above clarifies the situation on this. But as a separate matter, on each occasion I contacted the KC and on each occasion I was told to go via the warranty as they could not arrange appts for me etc whcih seemed wholly reasonable to me.

The point on Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 is interesting and I knew nothing about this. Can you give me any further information?

I had to sign the manufacturers engineers report when they attended on each occasion but nothing by the Kitchen company re the guarantee that I can see. Although the terms of the Manf Guarantee does state that it doesn't affect the terms of CRA.

I get your point about it relying on the communication between us and I am hoping I have that covered but I totally see what you are saying and I appreciate the comprehensive answer.

A_Geordie

If you have a paper trail which shows there is involvement by Kc, then I would say that you have reasonable grounds to claim under the CRA on the basis that the repair/replacements were directed (in whole or in part) by KC. As a future reference, if you want to exercise your consumer rights, you need to pursue the supplier and not be persuaded into following a claim under a manufacturer warranty. If the supplier doesn't comply, then your option is to reject the goods and then sue the supplier.

The DMCCA is new legislation that supersedes (mostly) the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT) . The purpose is to protect consumers from unfair trading such as aggressive practices and misleading them into entering into a contract but also matters related post-contract. DMCCA is introducing updated consumer rights such as subscription, drip pricing, fake reviews etc. and those new rights are not yet in force until the government bring in secondary legislation, but the provisions related to unfair commercial practices are.

To get an understanding of the rules around unfair practices, the Competition and Markets Authority have issued new guidance late last year, so worth a read rather than me trying to explain.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691b9bd821ef5aaa6543ee6f/Unfair_commercial_practices_CMA207_18_Nov_2025__2_.pdf

At the moment, the CPUT provisions still remain in force for consumer remedies, and the above guidance does not explain the remedies, but you can read about them in the link below.

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/fair-trading/protection-from-unfair-trading-consumers-rights-of-redress

KJAVW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886925#Comment_81886925

That is very informative and helpful and plugs some gaps in my knowledge. I put everything in writing when dealing with stuff like this and so I believe. am hoping the paper trail supports my claim.

However it is concerning that if a less than honest retailer could direct the consumer to claim against the manufacturers guarantee and thus alleviate themselves of any responsibility, that seems unfair on the unsuspecting consumer so it would be good if the new regs could address this. Had I not put everything in writing I would have a hard time to prove my stance.

Their rationale was that if they contacted the manufacturer under the terms of the warranty on my behalf, they could not arrange engineers visits etc, so it was best that I do it and I accepted that as a reasonable rationale and this exchange was in writing. But I always put the issue in writing to the kitchen company and had to get them fully involved the 2nd time as the manf would not play ball and it was the KC that sorted the replacement freezer for me and again this is all in writing. Indeed in response to my 7 day warning letter of impending action they replied saying " It is unfortunate that you have experienced issues with your freezer, however at every time of asking, KC have assisted, followed up that engineers have been booked in and that repairs and replacement products were delivered and acted upon. If, as we have stated previously, we were notified that the product was faulty or not fit for purpose within 30 days, we would have acted as we have done throughout this chain of events and supplied a replacement model." But I didn't know within 30 days of purchase that the freezer had an inherent fault so that part is irrelevant.

There are lots of passages I can quote from our email exchanges but when I went to the KC when the Manf refused to replace upon the 2nd failure, the KC replied by email on their letterhead stating along the lines that they have been in touch with the manufacturer and who they need to speak to is off that day but once they have caught up, they should be able to offer us a clear plan on the way forward in a few days. That plan was the KC advising me that the freezer would be replaced and that they manf would be in touch with me directly to arrange replacement asap but if I hadn't heard anything by x date, I was to go back to KC, which is what I did. To me that shows this was orchestrated by the KC as remedial action.

I'm hoping comments like this are enough to swing it in my favour but only time will tell. Once again, thank you, you have opened my eyes to a few points.

A_Geordie

However it is concerning that if a less than honest retailer could direct the consumer to claim against the manufacturers guarantee and thus alleviate themselves of any responsibility,

It is a well known tactic used by retailers and it works quite well. Stonewall, deflect or use whatever methods to make it difficult for the consumer to pursue a remedy in the hope that they just give up. The sooner you realise that you are merely speaking to low level staff just following internal policies, the less frustrating it becomes. This is why whenever a dispute happens or is about to happen, keeping it to writing or following up after a phone call is the evidence you need to support your case.

I'm hoping comments like this are enough to swing it in my favour but only time will tell. Once again, thank you, you have opened my eyes to a few points.

Ideally, when you first spoke/wrote to KC, you would have said that you wanted a repair/replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is an unequivocal assertion of your rights, and if KC then misdirected you to the manufacturer for a repair, then you should still be able to argue that the misdirection and the actions that followed does not extinguish the exercise of your consumer rights. So the repair/replacement by the manufacturer under the so-called warranty did not negate your claim under the CRA. I would probably go as far as suggesting that KC may be seeking to contract out of the CRA contrary to section 31.

Similarly, if you alluded to the CRA by saying something along the lines of, "the freezer is faulty, I wish to exercise my consumer rights to repair/replace the freezer as it is no longer working" then you would probably be ok too.

Personally, I can't be bothered faffing about going back and forth playing ping pong with correspondence. If retailer's position is that they are not willing to negotiate or to reasonably resolve the dispute to my liking, that's all I need to take it to the next stage. Some posters on here might suggest taking alternative routes before legal proceedings such as the Ombudsman (if there is one) but in all reality, it's slow, rarely gets you the outcome you want and retailers don't give a toss until legal proceedings are issued.

This is because (a) legal proceedings have strict deadlines, (b) the claim gets diverted to their legal team or at least someone that usually has common sense and (c) there's a good chance that if you have pleaded a decent claim, it will get settled relatively quickly since the cost of defending is usually considerably more expensive vs cost of settlement. Some companies do like to defend claims right to the end out of principle (I'm looking at Currys as an example) so it's pot luck and the risk of going to court, so only do so if you're prepared to take it all the and not chicken out as the hearing creeps closer.

The ball is in your court now, and I'm sure you now know what is needed to take this further if you need to, so I will say good luck and let us know the outcome either way for the benefit of other forum users.

KJAVW

I was getting nervous about my decision as much that I read like the earlier posters on here seemed to imply my rationale was wrong and the KC were so adamant.

I read up as much as I could before applying to court, I used AI, spoke to CAB and had a 30 min session with a solicitor and I can tell you that based onthe same information there was some considerably different advice. In the end I considered everything and I found the line I wanted to defend, with the benefit of hindsight and the type of knowledge you have imparted, I would have been firmer in my insistence it was their issue to resolve but I think I have covered this off historically more by accident than intent, albeit not as strong as it could have been.

All the paperwork is in and my case presented and as you said earlier, I think l I have a chance but it will stand or fall on the strength of my communication with the KC.

Thank you everyone for your input (negative or positive), I feel like I can defend my claim to the judge now and so I have some hope of a positive outcome. If nothing else, should I ever be in this position again I will be a lot more confident in handling it.

I will report back on the outcome.

Ectophile

Aside: if a manufacturer offers a 10 year parts guarantee, it's not because they think the thing will last 10 years. It's because parts are cheap and the call out charge is expensive. They can make a profit every time the thing goes wrong.

KJAVW

Yesterday was the court hearing. The judge's decision, which I await in writing was that the KC were liable but that I had failed to evidence an inherent problem and that 7 months from installation was too long a period for the control panel issue to appear.

I thought my battle would be on evidencing the KC were liable but he completely ignored the fact the original and replacement freezer failed three times in total over 2.5 years with the exact same fault and that the bundle contained 14 pages of reviews from the manufacturers own website (post our purchase) showing others had experienced the exact same issue with this model and this was repeated on TrustPilot.

He started the hearing by saying he had read the bundle and wanted an overview of the problem with reference to the applicable laws. I was asked to start, I was explaining what happened with the freezer (on each occasion the same thing) and he interrupted me and said that we had limited time and I needed to move on (we had only been in the room 10 minutes, he did this 3 times when I was trying to evidence stuff. The entire hearing only took 40-50 minutes and I feel he was unfair for criticising lack of info when he kept interrupting me when I was trying to evidence stuff.

I know when you lose its normal to feel dissatisfied but he really didn't give me a chance to explain and not happy as I feel unheard.

But the point for others to take away is that if you get referred by the retailer to the manufacturers guarantee and you are not happy with their offerings, regardless of whether the product has been replaced under the manufacturers guarantee, you an revert to the retailer as they are the ones responsible under the terms of the contract. The judge said they cannot simply add a clause to negate themselves of liability and the replacement freezer was the remedy that they arrange with the manufacturer and not mine.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81893842#Comment_81893842

That was remarkably quick.

As recently as 15th February (less than a week ago), you seemed to be asking for advice as to whether you could follow the Small Claims process:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886246#Comment_81886246

Boohoo

The OP posted on leaglebeagles website about this I noticed last week I think and thought I had seen the issue before.