Neato Botvac Connected D7

Sunshine050724

Has anyone in the UK successfully pursued a refund or Section 75 claim relating to Neato robot vacuums losing app functionality?

I bought a Neato Botvac Connected D7a few years back for about £400 from myRobotcenter. The vacuum itself still works but is very limited now, but since Neato shut down the cloud/app services, it has lost core features including app control, mapping and scheduling.

It was specifically sold as a “Connected” device, so I feel the product is no longer really what was originally purchased, and it is an expensive item.

I’ve seen a few Reddit posts mentioning successful refunds and Section 75 claims, but most are older or outside the UK.

Interested to know:

• whether anyone in the UK has had success recently
• whether retailers/card providers accepted the “not as described” argument
• what sort of refund/partial refund people received
• whether age of the device became a major issue

Thanks!

born_again

What do you call a few years?

Chargeback no chance. (timelimits)

S75 would need breach of contract &/or misrepresentation.

So in effect you need the T/C at time of purchase to prove anything.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6668004/neato-botvac-connected-d7

Item purchased "a few years back". When, exactly?

When the item was sold as a "connected" device, was any period for the cloud based services to be provided indicated with that? Is there a connected service that can be subscribed to for the ongoing period?

Who did you buy from? Neato ceased business in 2023 and the cloud services ceased in 2025. You cannot pursue any rights against a defunct business. However, the parent company seem to have put an exchange programme in place:

https://support.neatorobotics.com/support/solutions/articles/204000080637-vorwerk-launches-voluntary-exchange-program-for-neato-customers-in-europe

Okell

"… a few years back…" 😄

Sunshine050724

sorry should have said specific year. It is 5 years old which I know sounds a long time but it is an expensive item which no longer does what it said it should. And it is reasonable to expect that this type of quality product should still be working in the way it was described. I think I would still have rights with the retailer at this point however so far from my investigations I think they have gone bust – at least the UK part.

Vorwerk have also stopped their services earlier than they said they originally.

Aylesbury_Duck

I think you'll need something in the original specification that guaranteed or implied that the connected service would be available for the life of the product.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81996615#Comment_81996615

It's a 5 yo vacuum cleaner so it is assessed as such and the normal life expectancy of a vacuum cleaner. I don't know what the life expectancy of a vacuum cleaner is but, for discussion purposes, let's assume 6 years. The OP would at most be eligible for the remaining portion of normal life expectancy less the beneficial use to date.

1 year out of 6 years and original cost £400 so about £70 at most that might be a remedy.

Given the vacuum cleaner still performs the primary function, the loss might be considered to be further reduced.

All of that is likely moot as the OP indicates that both the original retailer and the manufacturer have ceased trading. There is no-one for the OP to pursue for a remedy.

Are any unofficial apps available that allow the remote control of the device?

born_again

Op will need to remember that S75 can take age of device into consideration. Given the fact the co are no longer trading, then connected services are a moot point.

It is something to consider when buying anything that relies on connected services, if the co goes under then how will it work 🤷‍♀️

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81997284#Comment_81997284

But how much might the OP reasonably seek to claim under S75 against the £400 vacuum cleaner taking into account the age of the device in question and the ongoing benefit of the device continuing to perform the primary function of vacuuming?

That is more a question for the OP to consider the factors at play and their assessment of loss suffered.