Beko washer-dryer failed after ~1 year, flooded kitchen – Beko refuses responsibility

JonnyMK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82119583#Comment_82119583

Thanks for your input. I appreciate that you have a different view on the prospects of a CPA claim, but I'm looking for constructive advice based on the actual circumstances of my case rather than repeated assertions that the claim isn't worth pursuing.

Some of the points you've made appear to be your interpretation of the legal position rather than established facts. For example, the fact that the appliance has been removed from my home does not in itself establish that it cannot be inspected or that it automatically fails some legal evidential threshold. Likewise, saying that my photographs and videos only demonstrate "symptoms" doesn't mean they are irrelevant evidence of the appliance's behaviour or of what actually caused the incident.

The in-situ inspection is also slightly beside the point from my perspective. I did not remove the opportunity for Beko to carry one out — I waited for their appointed engineer and they failed to attend. I subsequently reproduced the fault and offered Beko the opportunity to inspect the appliance after AO collected it, which they declined.

I'm not claiming that this automatically proves my case or guarantees success in court. I'm simply pointing out that the circumstances are considerably more nuanced than "the machine was disposed of, therefore there is no evidence".

This is a consumer forum and I'm posting because I'd like to hear from people who have relevant experience of pursuing manufacturers for consequential damage, particularly under the CPA, or who can point me towards reliable information about the legal position.

If you have specific evidence, legislation, case law or authoritative guidance that supports the conclusions you're making, I'm happy to consider it. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you could leave further comments on this particular issue to people who can offer constructive, evidence-based advice. Repeatedly telling me that I shouldn't pursue it without addressing the specific circumstances isn't particularly helpful.

MattMattMattUK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82119587#Comment_82119587

The point is you have an easy claim against AO under the CRA which them makes them liable with a much lower threshold of evidence and they will almost certainly agree to fix the issue, or you can attempt to take Beko to court and from a legal perspective it will get thrown out at the evidence stage. Your other choice is to let your home insurance handle it, which is what insurance is for.

Option A: CRA complaint against AO. The chance of a successful outcome is very high and will not involve going to court.

Option B: Home Insurance. The chance of a successful outcome is very high and will not involve going to court.

Option C: CPA against Beko. Low to zero chance of success, time and cost of going to court.

I know which one (or two) I would pick.

JonnyMK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82119591#Comment_82119591

OK, thanks. I will certainly consider your points, and I'll explore Option A with AO in the meantime.

AO did reimburse me £75 for the damage they caused directly during installation (the damaged vinyl), along with £20 for the poor customer journey. They also specifically directed me to raise a separate claim with Beko for the damage caused by the original appliance failure.

It does seem reasonable that the manufacturer should be accountable for damage caused by a defect in its product rather than the retailer, although I appreciate that what seems reasonable and what can ultimately be established in law aren't always the same thing.

For now, I'll see what AO have to say and continue looking into the options available to me.

Aylesbury_Duck

No, it's reasonable for the retailer to be responsible, not the manufacturer. The retailer has chosen to stock the manufacturer's product. Their buying team will have checked the failure rate, quality control, etc. The risk and responsibility they then take on (the risk of failure and the responsibility of the CRA) is part of their margin calculation. Otherwise, what are you paying them for?

sammyjammy

You don't say anything about whether or not you tried to rearrange the failed appointment? Just because you managed to produce the fault again it doesn't mean it was a manufacturing fault.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82119591#Comment_82119591

Sorry but where does the CRA make the retailer responsible for consequential losses which is what the OP is seeking? (Isn't he?)

AO have already replaced the m/c. Isn't that all the CRA requires AO to do?

If the OP is seeking compensation for the damaged flooring and kitchen units etc presumably he would have to sue AO and/or Beko in negligence.

The outcome would depend on whether the m/c was defective; whether that defect caused the damage to the flooring and units; whether AO and/or Beko should have been aware of the defect; and whether the damage to the flooring and units was reasonably foreseeable

I don't think it's a consumer rights issue

If I were the OP I'd try posting on Legal Beagles

Chief_of_Staffy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82119583#Comment_82119583

Under what circumstances could the symptoms of a fault occur in the absence of an actual fault?

PHK

Symptoms don't tell you the cause of a fault.

In any claim, the OP would need to prove the cause of the fault was a defect and not damage/misuse/abuse/error.

Alderbank

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82120327#Comment_82120327

It's more the opposite of that - one symptom could be caused by a number of different causes and it's the cause which is important.

For example, a common symptom of a faulty washing machine is water leaking round the door during a wash. That could be caused by the machine being assembled wrongly in the factory or the door seal could be made of unsuitable material. These would both be grounds for a claim under CRA that the machine did not conform to contract. However that same symptom frequently is the result of the user allowing damaging objects like coins going into drum with clothes.

Symptoms are pointers to the cause of the fault.

Chief_of_Staffy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82120354#Comment_82120354

Then that's a symptom of a problem. A symptom of a fault, by definition, mandates a fault. In the case of the OP, if whatever is shown on the video cannot be the result of user error, then it's clear a fault in the machine that's the cause. So the video is crucial information, in this instance, when deciding if a fault exists or if one is only suspected.