Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News0 min ago
replacement of white goods under warranty
We bought a hob. Within a year (around 10 months) it was faulty. The supplier (a small independent) told us it would need to be replaced. We wanted "like for like" (they offered us an inferior model initially). After waiting about 8 weeks we claimed for a new one under home insurance. it is now 7 months down the line... and I would stil like reimbursement (Especiallyas we had to pay �150 excess on insurance anyway) the supplier now tells us he will merely give us �50 discount on another item (the hob cost �400). He wants us to "prove" the �150 excess we paid...(i told him no way - our insurance is our business not his) His reasoning: we had insurance (!) and that after ten months use there would have been some "wear and tear" so we are not entitled tto a full refund... I thought a years warranty was a years warranty!! any advice please? Thanks
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by evedawn. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You are covered in the Sale of Goos Act. You go back to the seller and remind him of this. Your can demand your money back or a replacement for up to 6 years after the purchase if the goods are not fit for purpose - you have to prove that, which won't be a problem.
The seller is playing silly ******* with you and trying to wriggle out of it. Do some googling on the Sale of Goods Act and you will see exactly what you're entitled to.
Your year's warranty means ****** all because you're covered anyway. I never take out a warranty when I buy stuff like this, if something happens to it to deem it not fit for purpose then I know I'm covered. I had jumped up little so and so try to tell me that I *had* to take the extra warranty out when I bought my plasma TV, I told him I didn't want it, he asked why, I told him I'm covered under the Act and he said "oh, but that doesn't cover accidental damage", I said "I know, that's why I have home insurance!!"
The seller is playing silly ******* with you and trying to wriggle out of it. Do some googling on the Sale of Goods Act and you will see exactly what you're entitled to.
Your year's warranty means ****** all because you're covered anyway. I never take out a warranty when I buy stuff like this, if something happens to it to deem it not fit for purpose then I know I'm covered. I had jumped up little so and so try to tell me that I *had* to take the extra warranty out when I bought my plasma TV, I told him I didn't want it, he asked why, I told him I'm covered under the Act and he said "oh, but that doesn't cover accidental damage", I said "I know, that's why I have home insurance!!"
As {dakota} quite rightly points out, you recourse is from the retailer by means of the Sale of Goods Act and you are entitled to a full refund.
Unfortunately, evedawn, the worst thing you could have done was to have made a claim under your home insurance (I�m surprised it covers faulty goods actually). To complicate matters further you told the retailer what you had done. Although your insurance arrangements have nothing to do with him he could now argue that if he reimburses you the full amount you will be �250 better off.
The �250 loss has now been transferred from you to your insurers (and, by extension, to their policyholders via their premiums). If you took the matter to the small claims court it is likely that the adjudicator would take that into account and award you only �150 as you cannot expect to profit from these losses.
You may be well advised to inform your insurers that you are trying to get reimbursement but I believe you should now limit your claim against the retailer to the �150 excess. Your insurers may wish to pursue the retailer for reimbursement of their outlay to you.
If you do manage to get the full �400 from the retailler (which I believe is now unlikely, but good luck to you anyway) you will be liable to reimburse your insurers.
I, too, would be interested to know the outcome.
Unfortunately, evedawn, the worst thing you could have done was to have made a claim under your home insurance (I�m surprised it covers faulty goods actually). To complicate matters further you told the retailer what you had done. Although your insurance arrangements have nothing to do with him he could now argue that if he reimburses you the full amount you will be �250 better off.
The �250 loss has now been transferred from you to your insurers (and, by extension, to their policyholders via their premiums). If you took the matter to the small claims court it is likely that the adjudicator would take that into account and award you only �150 as you cannot expect to profit from these losses.
You may be well advised to inform your insurers that you are trying to get reimbursement but I believe you should now limit your claim against the retailer to the �150 excess. Your insurers may wish to pursue the retailer for reimbursement of their outlay to you.
If you do manage to get the full �400 from the retailler (which I believe is now unlikely, but good luck to you anyway) you will be liable to reimburse your insurers.
I, too, would be interested to know the outcome.
1 to 5 of 5
Latest Posts
Business & Finance6 mins ago
Arts & Literature7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.