Consumer rights advice

Brondie

Hi,

I purchased a delonghi coffee machine directly from delonghi online in October 2025. It was unopened until end of November 25 and by mid December had developed a fault. I contacted delonghi and the machine was collected, repaired and returned to me over January 2026. The machine worked briefly, but the fault has returned. I am not interested in a further repair as I don't think such a new machine should already be faulty and having a second repair. I have quoted various parts of the consumer rights act, but delonghi are saying that if I want a refund I need to provide a report from an independent engineer, or they can just repair it.

As I understand it, under the consumer rights act I have to give the retailer one chance to repair and if it is unsuccessful then I can exercise my final right to reject and am entitled to a refund. Also because I have owned the machine for less than 6 months the law assumes that the fault was present on delivery and I do not need to provide a report.

Am I incorrect? What are the next steps if delonghi still refuse to refund? I am in Scotland so could raise a simple procedure claim at my local sheriff court, but would like to avoid going down that route.

Thanks for reading such a lengthy post!

Okell

I beleive you are right on both counts.

After one failed repair or replacement the consumer is entitled to a refund. s24(5)(a) Consumer Rights Act 2015

If a fault manifests itself within 6 months of delivery the fault is legally presumed to have been present at purchase. The onus is on the seller to prove otherwise - the consumer need to do nothing. s19(14) & (15)

Because you are still within 6 months you are entitled to a full refund. s24(10)

[Edited to add CRA link]

Okell

To add to previous post:

I'd first go back to the seller and quote the legislation to them.

If that doesn't work and (a) you paid by credit card and (b) it cost over £100, complain to your credit card provider under s75 Consumer Credit Act 1974

If all that fails you'll need to sue the seller.

Ergates

You are correct - the retailer has had an opportunity to repair or replace and the fault has returned. You can reject the goods and ask for a refund. As it is within 6 months, any fault is assumed to have been present from the start (unless the retailer can prove otherwise) and they are not allowed to reduce the refund for the time you've had the product.

If you've got to the end of the road with "normal" customer services, then the next step might be to get hold of the email address for the CEO of the group and try that. People sometimes get results that way.

From their website this is the actual company involved:

Corporate details

Please be advised of our corporate details as follows.

Company name and address: Kenwood Limited, New Lane, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2NH
Registered in England and Wales
No: 872044
VAT Registration Number: GB 486989749

Brondie

Thank you for your replies. It is very frustrating when they won't act as they should. I will try and find an email address for the CEO and if that doesn't work then unfortunately I may have to raise a court action.

Alderbank

Companies House says that Alan Cummings is the Head Honcho.

You can message him via LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-cummings-6b573bb6/

Okell

He must be busy at the moment…

screech_78

As others have said, you are correct. They are however entitled to confirm the fault.

Brondie

They have now come back to me saying that they need the machine back for their engineer to inspect and see if the fault was present from new, before issuing a refund. Is this reasonable? I feel like they will just deny any fault to avoid refunding.

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81901004#Comment_81901004

No/Maybe/It depends.

In simple terms: No.

The legislation says that the default assumption is that faults that occur within the first 6 months were there at point of sale, it is on the retailer to prove otherwise. That means they shouldn't be asking to inspect the device before agreeing to a refund.

The "Maybe" comes in because the legislation says that once a company has agreed to give a refund it should be done without undue delay and within 14 days. Which, effectively, gives them 14 days to give you a refund - which should give them time to get the machine back and inspect it.

So - if they wanted to inspect the machine before paying the refund - and they managed to do this within 14 days then that would be supported by the law. However, if they want to inspect the machine before agreeing to the refund then that is not supported by the law.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81901030#Comment_81901030

"… The legislation says that the default assumption is that faults that occur within the first 6 months were there at point of sale, it is on the retailer to prove otherwise. That means they shouldn't be asking to inspect the device before agreeing to a refund… "

I'm not 100% sure about that…

Don't you think s19(15)(a) implies that the seller can inspect the goods before agreeing to a refund? Otherwise how could the seller possibly establish that the goods did conform to contract on the day of purchase? I don't see where the legislation explicitly prohibits such an inspection.

"… if they wanted to inspect the machine before paying the refund - and they managed to do this within 14 days then that would be supported by the law…"

I don't see how the legislation (1) supports an inspection post agreement to refund but before payment of the refund yet (2) doesn't support inspection before agreement to refund.

I think the legislation is silent on this.