Jump to content


AO not abiding by Consumer Rights Act, offered me £7.94!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 418 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I bought a Beko washing machine from AO in July 2014 which was delivered to my home.


From the beginning the machine always had a little niggle. It would run for longer than the remaining time displayed. Sometimes running for a while with 1 min remaining. As time went on sometimes it developed more little quirks. Sometimes I would have to manually cancel the programme and it would flash 'end' for an age without unlocking.


Eventually it packed in altogether, just permanently flashes 'end' and door wouldn't open. Contacted AO who put me thru to Beko who sent an engineer round. They said it was some control unit or something on the drum and replaced it.


It was OK for a while before the same faults appeared again, I rang them again and engineer came out and replaced same part again.

This was March 2017.


Yesterday it packed in again with the same fault. This time Beko said it was out of warranty and they couldn't help and to speak to the retailer.


Spoke to AO who said out of warranty etc, I brought up the Consumer Rights Act and she went off to speak to a supervisor. Came back and said that because it was so near the end of the 6 years they couldn't do anything.

Huh? I told them it didn't matter whether there was 2 years or 2 days remaining I was still within the 6 years and the machine had clearly been problematic from the start.

Off she went again, this time a manager came on the line.

I explained the issue. I said I could provide proof that the fault was present from the outset through the engineer's reports. She said she didn't dispute this and that I was within my rights under the Consumer Rights Act and that she can offer me an "appreciated refund" of £7.94

What?? She said that "because the appliance has been in the home and used since july 2014 and has been used for 4 years we would look to refund partial value of the appliance"

How can they decide that it's only worth £7.94 if it was in working condition, where can you buy used washing machines for that amount?

She went on to say, alternatively she could offer £30 off a new washing machine, which I declined!


Eventually she said another option would be to sell me a Repair and Protect plan from Domestic and General for £149 of which they would contribute £75

This would get the machine repaired and covered for 12 months.


This is a better option than £7.94 but I would have thought that the Consumer Rights Act would cover situations such as this.

What's the point of having the act if retailers can decide that the goods are worth peanuts.


Any advice would be appreciated before I decide the next step. Obviously taking up their offer of the Repair and Protect plan would be the easiest option to get the washing machine back up and running but I feel like they're pushing me into accepting this because they know I'm unlikely to be able to fight it out without a washing machine for however long it would take to get this settled.


Many thanks in advance.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, your purchase is covered by the Sale of Goods Act not the Consumer Rights Act because you bought it in 2014.


You're quite right about six years and it not mattering that the end of six years is nearly up. Also, you have misunderstood the six years. Six years runs from the date of the breach of contract – not from the date the contract was made.


However, you have had four years use of the machine and it had been up to you to do something about it earlier. I can't imagine any court awarding you the value of a new machine when you have enjoyed for years use of it. I think you have two estimate the expected life of the machine and then base any compensation on the remaining time. If we say that the reasonable expected life of the machine is eight years, then you could consider that if you up having to sue in the court that the best you would be awarded would be about 50% of the price you paid when it was new.


The suggestion that you are making that you should buy some kind of insurance plan and then claim on it seems a bit odd because technically speaking you would then be claiming on a defect which existed before the plan was taken out and I would have thought most plans would exclude pre-existing conditions. It seems to me that the suggestion they're making is not completely legit.


If you wanted to take this further then I think you should suggest to them half of the price of a new machine on the basis that you would then go ahead and buy another machine from them. This might appeal to them as a kind of win-win situation because they would end up selling you a new machine that you would only pay half of its value.


You could certainly take this to court but I think that the fact that you have put up with it for so long and that you have essentially used machine for four years would reduce the chances of success. I would break your chances of success in a small claim as probably 65%. These are not odds that I particularly like

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. I decided to take them up on the Repair and Protect plan. 75 quid isn't too bad in the great scheme of things.

Already a screw up tho with Domestic and General, booked in for yesterday and they didn't turn up. Rang them and they'd booked next week 2nd October by mistake. Then they realised the engineer booked doesn't cover my area so it's the 5th Oct now.

So it's off to the launderette I go, it'll be like being a student again! On the plus side, D&G have agreed to reimburse launderette costs as it was their mistake which is fair enough.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...