Bearings failed after just 15 months

[Smoothy]

I bought a Zanussi washing machine. Well a year and a quarter later, that Zanussi's bearings decided that it was going to wear out, with a loud screeching noise heard during spin.  So on the 7th Jan I booked a fixed-price repair with Zanussi.  Big mistake - they came out today (nearly two weeks later) merely to diagnose the issue, THEN order parts (new drum, motor and bearing assembly).  Next booking - 31st Jan.

So angry!  I can't have no washing machine for nearly a month, especially with kids in the house.

Asked for a refund.  Will only get back £69.99 because the engineer came out.

I've now sent a complaint to them.

It's literally quicker to replace a machine, I can order one and get it out tomorrow.

My advice - if your machine goes kaput out of warranty, buy a new one, even if it's a year and a day later.

[Whitegoodshelp (Andy)]

This is a is abismal service. Under the consumer rights act aour products must be repaired in a reasonable time. I would say waiting 2 weeks for someone just to come and order parts, and then another 2 or 3 weeks, is not reasonable. 

Also, you can argue with the retailer that the washing machine was not of sufficient quality, and has not lasted a reasonable time as it needs virtually all its insides replacing after such a very short time. 

I would get help and advice from Citizens Advice. Don't bother arguing with the manufacturer as they have no responsibility under consumer rights other than to honour the guarantee. 

I would tell the retailer you need a refund or replacement, because it was of insufficient quality as it has suffered major failure after just 15 months - plus, it cannot even be repaired within a reasonable time. So it has broken the Consumer Rights Act 2015 on 2 counts. 

[Smoothy]

Hi

I return with news.  After negotiating with AO they offered £75 toward the repair costs.  I thought this was not right to have paid £279 for a washing machine + £149 for a repair just to get £75 back, so took it to "Consumer Dispute Resolution Limited".  They finally got back stating this in point 18 and 19 of the decision document:

Quote

18.

As the Claimant bears the burden of proof, it is for the Claimant to initially satisfy the burden of proving that the Washing Machine is faulty due to a latent defect that would have been present at the point of delivery. Due to the length of time that the Claimant has had ownership of the Washing Machine, one would expect that it is more likely than not that such a defect would have been present sooner if it were caused as a result of a latent manufacturing defect. In order to dissuade this view, I would expect the Claimant to have provided sufficient evidence, such as their own independent expert report, to support that the fault with the Washing Machine has been caused by a latent manufacturing defect.

19.

Whilst I acknowledge the Claimant’s submission, as the Claimant has not presented any substantive evidence in support of the cause of the fault, I find that the Claimant has failed to discharge their burden of proof in this case.

So I was denied.  They did uphold the earlier £75 offer though.

So in short, if your white goods breaks before a reasonable amount of time has passed, you're going to have to pay to get an expert in to examine and determine that it's due to a fault inherent with the goods.  The mere fact of it conking out much much earlier than is usual is not enough to obtain your money back.

Unfortunately for me this means three things:

1. I will not deal with that retailer again
2. I now no longer trust that manufacturer
3. Repairs are a total waste of money, as the big company that deals with the majority of repairs can't or won't fix it in a timely manner

[Whitegoodshelp (Andy)]

Thanks for the update. I feel that you were let down by the consumer group in the sense that your complaint should not have been that it had an inherent fault. It was, as I mentioned in my first reply, that the appliance was not of sufficient quality, having suffered a major and catastrophic breakdown after less than two years. And furthermore, that it could not be repaired within a reasonable timeframe. These two points are also built into our consumer rights under the consumer rights act 2015.

The consumer rights act says that a product should be of sufficient quality, it should not suffer from inherent faults, and it should last a reasonable time – plus if needing a repair, repairs should be carried out within a reasonable time. It sounds like your case was only presented as it had an inherent fault, which no one is going to accept without some sort of "proof".

It's also incorrect for them to say that an inherent fault is likely to occur quite quickly. There could be an argument to say that there is a difference between an inherent fault and a design fault, but for me, if something is sold with a design flaw that causes premature failure of parts, then that is an inherent fault.

If a major part like the drum bearings fail after such a short time (and I've heard of countless cases where they fail after just a few years), then the only explanation is that there is either an inherent design fault that allows water to enter the bearings causing their demise, or that they are simply such poor quality that they do not last. Either case should easily be covered under the consumer rights act 2015.