Defective kitchen, 3 failed remedial orders – what are my rights now? Section 75 / replacement costs

Anothergenericuser

Hi all,

I’m hoping for some consumer-rights advice regarding an ongoing kitchen dispute in England.

I bought a fitted kitchen from a kitchen retailer. The original order arrived with a number of damaged, defective, incorrect and missing components.

Since then, the retailer has supplied three separate remedial orders, but the problems have continued. I am now almost three months into the dispute and still do not have a satisfactory, completed kitchen. I have now lost confidence in simply accepting a fourth remedial order through the same manufacturing/QC process.

I have escalated the complaint to the Managing Director and am awaiting a direct response.

I have also contacted the relevant furniture/home-improvement Ombudsman. They have told me that, although they can potentially deal with the dispute, they cannot actually force the retailer to provide me with a completed kitchen. My overriding objective is still very simple: I want a satisfactory kitchen, not just compensation for being left with a defective one.

I would really appreciate views on the following:

1. If I have to use another supplier, can I recover the reasonable cost of replacing all visible/matching kitchen components where that is necessary to avoid a mismatched kitchen, rather than only the individually defective items?
2. Does the fact that a fitted kitchen is made up of separate parts, but those parts are designed to form one matching kitchen, affect what would count as a reasonable remedy or recoverable loss?
3. If compatible replacement fronts/panels etc. cannot be sourced and some or all of the cabinetry reasonably has to be replaced, could I potentially recover those additional reasonable costs from the original retailer?
4. Would a formal Letter Before Claim/Action now be appropriate, and if so, what remedy would people suggest asking for?
5. Section 75: the kitchen was purchased as one overall order costing well over £100, but some individual defective components such as doors/panels may each be worth less than £100. Is the relevant “item” for the £100 threshold likely to be the kitchen/order as a whole, or could the card provider treat each component separately?
6. If I paid only part of the purchase price by credit card, would that potentially still allow a Section 75 claim for the wider breach?
7. The retailer has since been acquired by a parent company which is also a kitchen retailer. I appreciate my original contract may remain with the subsidiary, but is there any legal route to the parent company, or is their involvement entirely voluntary?
8. If I end up buying replacement kitchen components/cabinetry elsewhere because the retailer has repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory goods, what sort of evidence should I obtain now to maximise my chances of recovering those costs later?

I genuinely just want the complete, satisfactory kitchen I paid for and do not want to end up paying thousands of pounds twice because the retailer cannot successfully remedy it.

Any advice, particularly from anyone familiar with the Consumer Rights Act or Section 75 in relation to fitted kitchens, would be very much appreciated.

StewedApple

Section 75: the kitchen was purchased as one overall order costing well
over £100, but some individual defective components such as doors/panels
may each be worth less than £100. Is the relevant “item” for the £100
threshold likely to be the kitchen/order as a whole, or could the card
provider treat each component separately?

Section 75 covers the contract not individual items, if an individual door (for example) is less than £100 in value s75 still applies as the contract is for the kitchen. If all the doors need replacement (because for example, there is no suitable match any more for 1 door and the replacement would be odd) then it is not unreasonable to require all doors to be replaced.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82099304#Comment_82099304

The S75 specifies a single item must be over £100 and banks are well known for declining orders that were over £100 but made up of multiple individual items under £100 each (eg 2 tickets at £75 each)

Kitchens are normally considered a single item, though have seen some to try and argue otherwise, it very much depends on how things are presented in the same way that a 2 pack of something for £120 would be covered but 2x single of the same at £60 wont.



1 Only if there is a reason, beyond preference, that just the defective items can be replaced

2 Yes, if those components can be bought individually

3 You have a duty to mitigate losses, if for some reason replacement parts cant be found the cost of getting items made would have to be compared to the cost of replacing the lot

4 Cash is the easiest remedy, its what you will be asking for in the courts if you go as asking for an injunction means its not a small track case and so risks are much higher as legal fees have to be paid by the loser

5 As above, they normally treat it as one item

6 S75 doesnt stipulate how much must have been paid by credit, as long as any of it is and the cash price of the item is between the limits its all good

7 Unless they have novated the contract then it stays with the original company. I would certainly be checking what has actually been bought as people often mistake the buying of assets as buying the company

8 youd normally get a quote or proforma invoice and use that for the claim and when the monies are paid then instruct the work knowing how much you've gotten

StewedApple

The S75 specifies a single item must be over £100 and banks are well
known for declining orders that were over £100 but made up of multiple
individual items under £100 each (eg 2 tickets at £75 each)

The original poster bought a kitchen not multiple single doors, I'm not clear what point you're making.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82099821#Comment_82099821

All deepends on how invoiced.

OP said bought a kitchen, as you would. 🤦‍♀️

StewedApple

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82100129#Comment_82100129

My thoughts are that the test is the contract, invoicing arrangements are likely form part of the test, but they could be separate - in say 10 pieces for some bizarre reason but still form a single coherent contract to which the act is applicable.

My understanding for S75 to apply there are some essential tests:-
1. The goods/services are bought under a regulated agreement covered by the Act. e.g HP agreement/Credit Card.

2. A single item purchased must >= £100 and ⇐£30000

3. Individual goods bought in combination which are less than £100 in value but bought as part of a coherent whole which in totality are £100 or more are covered ( the oft quoted example of a suit of separate trousers (£49) and jacket (£51) purchased as a matching pair and intended to be worn as a suit). In the case of a kitchen this is clearly a coherent whole, and even if any constituent part could be purchased individually this does not nullify the claim as it was bought as a whole and intended to be used as such.

My view is that the CCA applies in this case because it passes the combination of 1&3 above, and both the supplier and the credit provider are potentially liable.

As a general point, I think the original poster has an arguable claim with a reasonable chance of success, and has made significant efforts to bring about a resolution as well. If the supplier doesn't resolve the matter rapidly, in their shoes I'd be looking to a solicitor. Even if the supplier goes out of business the claim can be pursued against the lender.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82100305#Comment_82100305

As an almost certain small track claim why would you be paying for a solicitor out of your own pocket? The whole point of the small track is that legal representation is unnecessary and hence why their costs cannot be claimed

StewedApple

If I end up buying replacement kitchen components/cabinetry elsewhere
because the retailer has repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory
goods, what sort of evidence should I obtain now to maximise my chances
of recovering those costs later?

You want to avoid a situation in which the supplier claims that you are making an excessive claim for this work - if you can get 2-3 quotes from other suppliers this should provide ample evidence of the cost for the work. You don't necessarily need to accept the cheapest offer, if for example it's urgent and the most expensive supplier is the only one who can complete the work quickly, this is very likely to be accepted by the court - particularly if you're arguing loss mitigation.

A_Geordie

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82100305#Comment_82100305

I would largely agree with your analysis, however it is not without it's risks if it went to court. S75(3)(b) is clear that the s75 rule excludes any single item less than £100. The Financial Ombudsman Service (and if i recall, the court) guidance says that multiple items that make up an amount in excess of £100 do not qualify under s75 unless they were sold as part of a set.

I would anticipate the s75 creditor to argue that the OP had purchased a kitchen made up of multiple individual items, some of those items were valued at less than £100. The OP purchased those items to make up a complete kitchen but that does not mean those individual items turn into a single item to support a claim under s75.

This would be a sound argument to make from the s75 creditor, but it is rebuttable if the OP can make a strong and convincing counterargument. For me, the crucial question is, what was the OP and retailer's intention when they agreed to contract? Was the intention to sell/purchase individual parts or a complete kitchen?

The s75 creditor will want to keep the focus on the way in which the retailer has formatted the invoice and the OP needs to call that out as a red herring. OP has no control over how the invoice is produced so all relevant materials should be taken into account to determine whether the kitchen is to be classified as a complete, single item or set.

Arguments that could support the argument of a single, complete item or set:

• Retailer designed a kitchen to OP's specifications and tastes.
• Each of the individual kitchen units were created to make up that particular kitchen design as a set rather than single items.
• The kitchen was designed, manufactured, supplied and installed by the retailer which would suggest the intention of the OP and retailer was to provide and supply a complete kitchen.
• The invoice was merely a breakdown of what total cost of the kitchen and didn't alter the intention of the transaction, so looking at the invoice alone in isolation doesn't give a true picture of the situation.

Supporting evidence might include:

• Words or phrases such as "fitted kitchen", "complete kitchen" on the documents.
• Design drawings or 3D models that show the complete kitchen.
• References to installation of a kitchen rather than installation of components.
• Designs or other information that shows certain kitchen units or components were designed to specifically fit together.
• Check the retailer terms and conditions, does it talk about kitchens as a whole, fitted or new kitchens or does it refer to kitchens as individual items or components. For example, if the T&Cs says that they will supply a kitchen with or without installation then that would suggest they're not selling individual items.

It might be worth going through the Financial Ombudsman if the OP doesn't get a satisfactory result. I would also suggest trawling through the FOS' database of decisions to see if there are any precedents that fit the OP's case where they have contracted for a kitchen to be supplied/fitted.

Here's a leg up with a link to the database for the search term "fitted kitchen" and complaints that have been upheld, if the OP wishes to peruse.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/ombudsman-decisions/search?Keyword=fitted+kitchen&IndustrySectorID%5B1%5D=1&IsUpheld%5B1%5D=1&Sort=relevance

StewedApple

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82100309#Comment_82100309

The poster could go that way if they wish, but their questions suggested to me that they might be more comfortable with representation.

StewedApple

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82101000#Comment_82101000

I would look to the contract - I think this point may loom a lot less large than perceived - particularly if there's an HP agreement rather than a credit card purchase.

At this point I understand the supplier is still trading so even if a claim against the lender is defeated the poster still has their claim against the other party in any event.