Faulty vacuum, and retailer not replacing it.

Forums › Off topic › Faulty vacuum, and retailer not replacing it.

1 | 2

Jaxson

7489 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#969134 17-Jan-2014 21:44

Sorry, just saw this thread "Faulty vacuum, and retailer not replacing it." and thought... That sucks!...

MightyApe

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: You will find anything you want at MightyApe.

throbb

659 posts

Ultimate Geek

#969138 17-Jan-2014 21:57

mattwnz:
throbb:

The fault is not serious, read the definition of a serious fault. Just because the vacuum isn't working doesn't make it a serious fault.

The retailer has done what they should reasonably do and what a reasonable person would accept.

How do you know it is not serious? It doesn't work... they won't even look at repairing it to even assess what is wrong. Doesn't get much more serious than that. The consumer affairs definition of serious fault is when the goods are substantially unfit for their normal purpose and they can't easily be made fit for the purpose or this can't be done within a reasonable time. As the retailer isn't even prepared to get it looked at for repair, it would be considered a serious fault, due to them not attempting to remedy it. Anything uneconomical to repair would be a serious fault, which they have pretty much admitted by refusing to even attempt to repair it.

What is your definition of a serious fault then?

If it was a broken piece of plastic, or faulty switch that can be replaced, then that wouldn't be serious, if economical to repair.

What is a serious fault?

Under the Act a serious problem is any case where:

a reasonable consumer would not have bought the goods if they had known the nature and extent of the fault

Example: a consumer is unlikely to buy a new washing machine if they know the motor will burn out after three months

the goods are significantly different to a description given or to a sample or demonstration model

Example: a jersey is described as 100% wool but is 30% acrylic

the goods are substantially unfit for their normal purpose and they can't easily be made fit for the purpose or this can't be done within a reasonable time

Example: a DVD player will not fast forward or rewind and the fault cannot be found - the goods are substantially unfit for the particular purpose the consumer bought them for and they can't easily be made fit for the purpose or this can't be done within a reasonable time
Example: washable wallpaper that is not really washable at all

the goods are unsafe - e.g. a bicycle has faulty brakes.

Simply because its not working does not make it a serious fault, now if there was a history of this model of vacuum dying after 12 months then you might have a case.

The retailer has choose to offer you a refund as was one of there options by law. You have the option to take it or leave it.

Dunnersfella

4032 posts

Uber Geek

#969144 17-Jan-2014 22:13

mattwnz:

Hence why I am referring to consumer websites, which explain it far better, and clear up the grey areas with examples. That is why they exist!

To be fair, the consumer website has a relatively easy job...
They're saying things that people want to hear.
You're reading it the way you want to, and that's cool. But really, you're the only person on here who thinks the retailer isn't doing what they're supposed to.

mattwnz

18751 posts

Uber Geek

#969162 17-Jan-2014 22:23

Dunnersfella:
mattwnz:

Hence why I am referring to consumer websites, which explain it far better, and clear up the grey areas with examples. That is why they exist!

To be fair, the consumer website has a relatively easy job...
They're saying things that people want to hear.
You're reading it the way you want to, and that's cool. But really, you're the only person on here who thinks the retailer isn't doing what they're supposed to.

The info comes directly from the consumer affairs website, and it would be using real world situations of what has happened in the past, which is really the best way to understand them. The problem with Acts of parliament,are that they are totally open to interpretation, and can be unclear, which is why we have lawyers to challenge them.

Actually just read the manufacturers warranty contract , and that says the manufacturer will either repair or replace, and no mention of refund. So if the retailer doesn't come come to the party, I will just invoke that warranty contract with the manufacturer. In my case it looks easier, provides more protection and less ambiguity that you get with the CGA, in this particular circumstance. I have another appliance that matches this one, so any replacement has to be the same.
So will update this thread once I have got it resolved one way or another.

mattwnz

18751 posts

Uber Geek

#969169 17-Jan-2014 22:31

throbb:
Simply because its not working does not make it a serious fault, now if there was a history of this model of vacuum dying after 12 months then you might have a case.

The retailer has choose to offer you a refund as was one of there options by law. You have the option to take it or leave it.

I still don't understand your reasoning why it woldn't be considered a serious fault, as I beleive it would fall under the DVD situation, where it doesn't work for it's intended purpose. If it was the entire model, then you would be talking about a recall. I haven''t actually looked to see if anyone else had had this problem with this model, and probably difficult to tell. Anyway I will go to the manufactuer to get it resolved under the 24 month warranty contract, so the CGA terms aren't going to b needed.

surfisup1000

5095 posts

Uber Geek

#969179 17-Jan-2014 22:50

mattwnz:
Yes, but it is my choice whether to accept a refund as a solution according to the consumer website, where the fault is substantial. It is my choice whther to accept a refund, replacement or repair. It is not as though they couldn't get a replacement either if they tried, but they haven't even offered to try, which I don't think is good customer service.

I'm not sure that fact it was on sale and you cannot get a similar price today could be considered a consequential loss. But, maybe a sympathetic adjudicator might side with you?

Agree about customer service aspect . I've been to the disputes tribunal 4 or 5 times and won every time but I wouldn't take a case like this to them.

sonyxperiageek

2855 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#969190 17-Jan-2014 23:06

surfisup1000:
mattwnz:
Yes, but it is my choice whether to accept a refund as a solution according to the consumer website, where the fault is substantial. It is my choice whther to accept a refund, replacement or repair. It is not as though they couldn't get a replacement either if they tried, but they haven't even offered to try, which I don't think is good customer service.

I'm not sure that fact it was on sale and you cannot get a similar price today could be considered a consequential loss. But, maybe a sympathetic adjudicator might side with you?

Agree about customer service aspect . I've been to the disputes tribunal 4 or 5 times and won every time but I wouldn't take a case like this to them.

No it wouldn't be.

Sony

Bung

4619 posts

Uber Geek

#969227 18-Jan-2014 07:57

mattwnz: . I have another appliance that matches this one, so any replacement has to be the same. So will update this thread once I have got it resolved one way or another.

Matches in what way? Surely not a second unit.

Considering that this is Geekzone rather than Lawzone I'm surprised that you don't seem to have made any diagnosis of the fault even for curiosities sake. There's very little to go wrong in the charging circuit of a cordless vacuum. A typical unit has a charging cradle with an ac adapter that either supplies power to the contacts or not. If the adapter's ok and the vacuum's making good contact charging is almost inevitable. The only remaining problem is whether the battery has any capacity.

tchart

2124 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#969268 18-Jan-2014 10:15

My 5c.

Given you only used it 5 times. Take the refund and wait for another sale.

Toledo

67 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

2degrees HB

#969291 18-Jan-2014 10:42

Actually just read the manufacturers warranty contract , and that says the manufacturer will either repair or replace, and no mention of refund. So if the retailer doesn't come come to the party, I will just invoke that warranty contract with the manufacturer. In my case it looks easier, provides more protection and less ambiguity that you get with the CGA, in this particular circumstance. I have another appliance that matches this one, so any replacement has to be the same.
So will update this thread once I have got it resolved one way or another.

Just one other thing you may want to check in their warranty before you go down that route.... Batteries are considered a "consumable" (and only have a minimal warranty) in most warranties and if the battery is the cause of the issue and they find that when you send it to them then they are within their rights to charge you a no fault found inspection fee - usually around $50. In fact you are lucky the retailer has not already thought of this possibility. I don't know the design in question but I wouldn't think its particularly good for batteries to be on charge for the last year and only actually had use 5 (probably short) times.

I agree the situation is a little less "clear cut" than usual but totally agree with everyone else - Just take the refund.

My opinions are purely my own and are not at all those of my employer 2degrees.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#969320 18-Jan-2014 12:25

Toledo:
Actually just read the manufacturers warranty contract , and that says the manufacturer will either repair or replace, and no mention of refund. So if the retailer doesn't come come to the party, I will just invoke that warranty contract with the manufacturer. In my case it looks easier, provides more protection and less ambiguity that you get with the CGA, in this particular circumstance. I have another appliance that matches this one, so any replacement has to be the same.
So will update this thread once I have got it resolved one way or another.

Just one other thing you may want to check in their warranty before you go down that route.... Batteries are considered a "consumable" (and only have a minimal warranty) in most warranties and if the battery is the cause of the issue and they find that when you send it to them then they are within their rights to charge you a no fault found inspection fee - usually around $50. In fact you are lucky the retailer has not already thought of this possibility. I don't know the design in question but I wouldn't think its particularly good for batteries to be on charge for the last year and only actually had use 5 (probably short) times.

I agree the situation is a little less "clear cut" than usual but totally agree with everyone else - Just take the refund.

Hate to be adding my $0.02c but this happened to me a few years back - handheld Black & Decker vac, stopped powering, and the retailer sent it off for repairs. It came back working BUT I was charged for a replacement battery pack AND for the service charges. I had assumed it was a faulty appliance whereas it was a dead battery pack. I used it rarely and believing that a dead vac that was still under warranty was a retailers and/or manufacturers problem I asked for it to be repaired. The battery pack was out of warranty and the cost became mine.

One of the stores still selling this model may allow you to test your vac in-store. If it is the battery unit you then have the option of getting a new battery unit (most likely at your expense - check the warranty carefully) or of taking the original offer of your money back.

mattwnz

18751 posts

Uber Geek

#969340 18-Jan-2014 13:23

Toledo:
Actually just read the manufacturers warranty contract , and that says the manufacturer will either repair or replace, and no mention of refund. So if the retailer doesn't come come to the party, I will just invoke that warranty contract with the manufacturer. In my case it looks easier, provides more protection and less ambiguity that you get with the CGA, in this particular circumstance. I have another appliance that matches this one, so any replacement has to be the same.
So will update this thread once I have got it resolved one way or another.

Just one other thing you may want to check in their warranty before you go down that route.... Batteries are considered a "consumable" (and only have a minimal warranty) in most warranties and if the battery is the cause of the issue and they find that when you send it to them then they are within their rights to charge you a no fault found inspection fee - usually around $50. In fact you are lucky the retailer has not already thought of this possibility. I don't know the design in question but I wouldn't think its particularly good for batteries to be on charge for the last year and only actually had use 5 (probably short) times.

I agree the situation is a little less "clear cut" than usual but totally agree with everyone else - Just take the refund.

Thanks, it has been on charge for a year, I only charged it when it was low. But this time it didn't charge. It was a NiCad battery in it which suffer from memory effect. But ironically the instructions say it can be left on the charge all the time, which I wouldn't think would be good for a NiCad battery product. My old 15 year old one was on charge all the time though.

mattwnz

18751 posts

Uber Geek

#969341 18-Jan-2014 13:29

Elpie:
Toledo:
Actually just read the manufacturers warranty contract , and that says the manufacturer will either repair or replace, and no mention of refund. So if the retailer doesn't come come to the party, I will just invoke that warranty contract with the manufacturer. In my case it looks easier, provides more protection and less ambiguity that you get with the CGA, in this particular circumstance. I have another appliance that matches this one, so any replacement has to be the same.
So will update this thread once I have got it resolved one way or another.

Just one other thing you may want to check in their warranty before you go down that route.... Batteries are considered a "consumable" (and only have a minimal warranty) in most warranties and if the battery is the cause of the issue and they find that when you send it to them then they are within their rights to charge you a no fault found inspection fee - usually around $50. In fact you are lucky the retailer has not already thought of this possibility. I don't know the design in question but I wouldn't think its particularly good for batteries to be on charge for the last year and only actually had use 5 (probably short) times.

I agree the situation is a little less "clear cut" than usual but totally agree with everyone else - Just take the refund.

Hate to be adding my $0.02c but this happened to me a few years back - handheld Black & Decker vac, stopped powering, and the retailer sent it off for repairs. It came back working BUT I was charged for a replacement battery pack AND for the service charges. I had assumed it was a faulty appliance whereas it was a dead battery pack. I used it rarely and believing that a dead vac that was still under warranty was a retailers and/or manufacturers problem I asked for it to be repaired. The battery pack was out of warranty and the cost became mine.

One of the stores still selling this model may allow you to test your vac in-store. If it is the battery unit you then have the option of getting a new battery unit (most likely at your expense - check the warranty carefully) or of taking the original offer of your money back.

I don't believe there is any mention of batteries in the warranty, and as it is built into it, it probably wouldn't be considered a consumable. I know the models you mean, where you clip the battery pack onto the unit , but it isn't one of those ones. With these things you would expect the battery to last the life of a 2 year warranty, especially as it is their top of the range model. Perhaps it would be reasonable for it to lose some of it's charging capacity, but total failure is a different thing. Anyway the retailer may come up with a good solution, or they may refer it to the manufacturer for warranty repair.

tdgeek

26473 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#969363 18-Jan-2014 14:00

Jaxson: Sorry, just saw this thread "Faulty vacuum, and retailer not replacing it." and thought... That sucks!...

Mate, get with it, it doesn't suck!! :-)

1 | 2