Broken dishwasher 22 month old....... ***RESULT***

[spartagates]

Got home tonight to a message on the answer phone. Currys finally decided to acknowledge the letter. Basicaslly, they are only willing to offer part of the cost to fix of £95 that the engineer report quotes (quoted at £145 to fix, had to pay £35 to get them out to give an estimate). Also, he stated that the £95 INCLUDES the £35 to get the quote; so effectively they are offering £60.

 

To be honest, I felt as though this was an insult at first, but then I started thinking along the lines of the banks and their charges.... Would currys offer a penny if they were not obliged to? If warrenties were as far as their "duty of care" extended to, would they they even consider handing a penny over? Of course not. Well the chap is already booked in for wednesday morning to fix the dishwasher, they get seven days, then the moneyclaim goes in. I'm more than willing to sit infront of a judge and watch currys attempt to justify why I should be expected to pay £200 every two years for a new dishwasher because thats as long as they believe they should work for.......

[HydraUK]

I'm following this thread with interest because I too have a dishwasher that only just outlived its warranty (a Hotpoint too!)

 

Could anyone tell me what parts of SOGA relate to this, because I've just spent half an hour *trying* to read the document and it's given me a hell of a headache :confused: (scrolling eyes syndrome?)

 

I'd like to send or quote the relevant paragraphs with my letter because the store I bought the machine in is a tin-pot regional company and I doubt they will give an unsupported letter much attention.

[spartagates]

I'm following this thread with interest because I too have a dishwasher that only just outlived its warranty (a Hotpoint too!)

 

Could anyone tell me what parts of SOGA relate to this, because I've just spent half an hour *trying* to read the document and it's given me a hell of a headache :confused: (scrolling eyes syndrome?)

 

I'd like to send or quote the relevant paragraphs with my letter because the store I bought the machine in is a tin-pot regional company and I doubt they will give an unsupported letter much attention.

 

Quick scan and I think this is the bit your looking for.... sect 14 (2B(e))

 

Sale of Goods Act 1979

[HydraUK]

Ah thanks sparta, I had actually found that bit but was wondering if there was some expansion on 'durability' within the document.

 

Cheers tho

[spartagates]

An update. Rang the number yesterday to see about the "refund". I simply asked, after a drawn out explanation that basically they would offer me £60 towards costs or vouchers, if that was their final position as I did not see the point of sending yet another letter now. They have had two letters and over a month to sort this out. They told me this was final.

 

The repairs were done today, which I have had to pay for. Good news, the dishwasher works! Bad news: I'm £145 down. I told them on the phone I would go straight to moneyclaim so I'm going to draft the details now. Any help would be appreciated!!!

[spartagates]

OK, here's how the moneyclaim is looking so far....

 

 

1. The Claimant purchased a kitchen package from the Defendant on 13th November 2004 for the cost of £1673.94. 2. On the 12th October 2006 the dishwasher, which was part of the purchase, ceased to function. 3. The defendant has engaged with the claimant on numerous occasions to negotiate; by phone and in writing; repair to the unit. 4. The Claimant contends that the under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) Section 14 the goods have not been of “durable” quality having only functioned for less than two years and as such, are not “fit for purpose”. 5. The claimant contends that the “wear and tear” to the unit of a mother and father with an eight month old baby cannot be contrived to be “excessive” (usage 4-5 times a week).

 

I do have the quote for work carried out etc. Should I include? Any thoughts?

[BankFodder]

The test is "satisfactory quality" not durable.

 

I think that you should ascertain the value of the dishwasher.

 

No need at the point to include the part about parents and baby,

In a claim you only plead the facts. no need to plead evidence.

 

Also, I would suggest that you buy a telephone recording device from Maplins, then call the company and one or two others and make enquiries about that disgwasher. Say you are considering buying one and talk about how long it will last.

 

If you can get the person in the company you are suing to say that they last for longer than two years - i.e. 4 or 5 years without any trouble, then that wil be very helpful to you.

 

I would even call the customer relations of the manufacturer and ask them about it's durability as you are considering getting one.

 

Once again if you can get people to commit themselves that they should be trouble free for a period longer than the time you have had yours then it will be very helpful to you.

 

Finally, what are you claiming for?

 

You probably won't get a replacement after this long.

 

A free repair would be more reasonable.

 

I would claim for a replacement or in the alternative, the cost of repair.

 

However, you must provide a quote for this.

 

Has it already been repaired? You say you have a quote - you should definitely include this.

 

I expect that this claim is too long for moneyclaim.

 

Use a paper N1 over th counter.

[spartagates]

The test is "satisfactory quality" not durable.

 

I think that you should ascertain the value of the dishwasher.

 

No need at the point to include the part about parents and baby,

In a claim you only plead the facts. no need to plead evidence.

 

Also, I would suggest that you buy a telephone recording device from Maplins, then call the company and one or two others and make enquiries about that disgwasher. Say you are considering buying one and talk about how long it will last.

 

If you can get the person in the company you are suing to say that they last for longer than two years - i.e. 4 or 5 years without any trouble, then that wil be very helpful to you.

 

I would even call the customer relations of the manufacturer and ask them about it's durability as you are considering getting one.

 

Once again if you can get people to commit themselves that they should be trouble free for a period longer than the time you have had yours then it will be very helpful to you.

 

Finally, what are you claiming for?

 

You probably won't get a replacement after this long.

 

A free repair would be more reasonable.

 

I would claim for a replacement or in the alternative, the cost of repair.

 

However, you must provide a quote for this.

 

Has it already been repaired? You say you have a quote - you should definitely include this. - already repaired

 

I expect that this claim is too long for moneyclaim.

 

Use a paper N1 over th counter.

 

Finally, what are you claiming for? - refund of the cost of repair

 

I would claim for a replacement or in the alternative, the cost of repair. - check

 

However, you must provide a quote for this. - got it (at £35 cost)

 

Has it already been repaired? You say you have a quote - you should definitely include this.

 

I expect that this claim is too long for moneyclaim. - will amend

 

Use a paper N1 over th counter.

 

HUGE apologies bankfodder, I know you are busy, and I have pm'd u instead of bookworm. I can only apologise . You have some very valid points and a fresh outlook has not harmed (though stopped me in my tracks!) Bookworm is not accepting pm's so a proxy "nudge" would be appreciated!

 

I will press on

 

John

[spartagates]

Firstly, in absolutely no offence to the great advice already given, I think I disagree with the reference to removing our family status. I feel that the whole point of the small claims process is that it is meant to bring the "due process" into the reach of the common person. To start to de-personalise the claims is surely a nod towards establishment, rather than reality. The small claims process is surely meant to be there for the person on the street to access justice rather than the lawyer (despite the dilution we see).

 

I honestly think that stating the human impact is more than relevant as this is about real life. My wife and child are a factor in this claim in my view.

 

At the end of the day, I will have to sit down in front of a judge (with my child - modern man et al!) and justify my claim.

[Bookworm]

Yes, but BF's point is that at this point, you are merely putting on a claim, not arguing it. That comes later. It's the equivalent of filling in a form with your name and details and ticking the boxes, so they can issue it, at the other end, a clerk will look a the claim, see if it's been filled in properly, fee's been paid, stamp it, next... And that's all that's required for now.

 

Don't forget to reclaim the fee for the quote as well.

[spartagates]

Yes, but BF's point is that at this point, you are merely putting on a claim, not arguing it. That comes later. It's the equivalent of filling in a form with your name and details and ticking the boxes, so they can issue it, at the other end, a clerk will look a the claim, see if it's been filled in properly, fee's been paid, stamp it, next... And that's all that's required for now.

 

Don't forget to reclaim the fee for the quote as well.

 

Ahh, getting ahead of myself. Sorry! So the claim wording sounds ok?

[spartagates]

1. The Claimant purchased a kitchen package from the Defendant on 13th November 2004 for the cost of £1673.94. 2. On the 12th October 2006 the dishwasher, which was part of the purchase, ceased to function. 3. The defendant has engaged with the claimant on numerous occasions to negotiate; by phone and in writing; repair to the unit. 4. The Claimant contends that the under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) Section 14 the goods have not been of “durable” quality having only functioned for less than two years and as such, are not “fit for purpose”. 5. The claimant has repaired the goods at a cost of £142.22 which are being reclaimed

 

That sound ok?

[rosiecotton]

Just to remind something that's already been said, the legal wording is "satisfactory quality" rather than durable quality. Durability is one of the issues covered by the satisfactory quality term, but it would be far better for you to use the umbrella of "satisfactory quality" here.

[spartagates]

Just to remind something that's already been said, the legal wording is "satisfactory quality" rather than durable quality. Durability is one of the issues covered by the satisfactory quality term, but it would be far better for you to use the umbrella of "satisfactory quality" here.

 

"durable" "satisfactory" or "reasonable" quality matters not. I'm willing to sit in front of a judge and explain about £1700 on a kitchen + appliances that don't last even two years and ask if thats long enough

[rosiecotton]

I agree the meaning is the same, but the correct legal term is "satisfactory quality" so was just flagging that back up again.

 

The judge will no doubt know this but there's no harm in crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

[HydraUK]

I sent a modified version of your letter to my tin-pot supplier on Tuesday, yesterday I got a call from them to book an engineer on Monday! RESULT! Sorry it didn't work for you mate... (I may still be eating my words if they decide fault is not theirs!! lol)

[spartagates]

Excellent m8, fingers crossed it all goes smoothly (though expect them to on "help" towards the costs, but stand firm!)

[spartagates]

another update. The moneyclaim is in. They have acknowledged it. I guess its time to see whose poker face wins

[spartagates]

It appears we have a result. Got a "without prejudice" letter today. The choice bits include....

 

.... It is clear that the dishwasher has failed prematurely and under these circumstances, I am prepared to offer you depreciated credit....We calculate our figures on an expected 6-year life span...you had use of the goods for 23 months, which leaves the balance of 51 months during which you could have expected to have use of the dishwasher.... I will also reimburse the £30.00 court fee you have incurred....

 

So, they are paying the full cost of repairs and my court fees. It's just a shame that it has to be down to bringing court action that ensures big players actually honour their duties under the Sales of Goods Act.

 

A side note, they obviously know what their duties include as they state "an expected 6-year life span" for white goods. Chalk one up for the good guys

[barracad]

Excellent - Well done!

 

(Incidentally, I would have said an estimated 6 year life span is about fair for a dishwasher, so not sure what you mean - you would expect the life span to be longer or shorter?)

[spartagates]

Excellent - Well done!

 

(Incidentally, I would have said an estimated 6 year life span is about fair for a dishwasher, so not sure what you mean - you would expect the life span to be longer or shorter?)

 

I actually thought the accepted life span for white goods to be 3 years (though I've heard the 6 year term bounded about). I do, personally, think 6 years to be fine, 3 years is a bit stingy for white goods as you could spend well over £1000 on some appliances. Saying that, I wonder if this "depreciated cost" responsibility thing has ever been tested in court.

[barracad]

I don't think they'd sell many dishwashers if they went round saying they would only last 3 years!!

[tim2718281]

I would generally say a reasonable time for most eletronic items is 3 years.

 

No, no, no. Purely electronic items can last a very long time ... say 10 years. I've got lots of electronic items in my home which are working fine after ten years.

 

Mechanical items such as dishwashers and washing machines are another matter. Personally, I'd expect them to last five years; and I think if the vendor thinks it's OK for them to last less than that, they should say so in their sales literature.

 

However, that's just my view. What you could do is ask your friends and neighbours how long they'd expect an item to continue working.

 

Better still, ask the store before you buy it ... (why don't we do that?)

 

Tim