replacement of white goods under warranty

[evedawn]

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

[{Dakota}]

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!!"

[evedawn]

thanks dakota - had a look at sale of goods act and it's pretty clear. Their attitude just p****es me off cos i think we have been more than patient (7 months now!) and they are still rying to wangle out of it.

[{Dakota}]

Glad you found it useful, it irritates me when sellers think we're all a bunch of fools too, let me know how you get on, please?

[New Judge]

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.

[evedawn]

thanks new judge for pointing out possible complications regarding the fact that we have claimed from insurance.

i am waiting for the latest from supplier....he assures me he will ring me back by tomorrow morning at the latest.