Washing Machine Repair Failure. Small Claims Court?

Lollymcd

Thinking about going to the small claims court with and issue I have with a repair job on my washing machine. As it’s a “service” and not a “product” I’m unsure how to go about it. I have no idea what actual proof I will need though or if I should bother.

The details ….

Our washing machine was making a loud noise when on the washing cycle and filling with water when it was supposed to on the drying cycle. Called in a repair person and explained the issues. He replaced the motor and charged €170. The machine ran ok while he was there.

When we put clothes in the machine we got a number of error messages on the control panel. We plugged it out and plugged it back in hoping this would help and it ran a normal cycle ok but when we put clothes in the dryer they came out wet. We called the repair person back and he said that the issue with the dryer would be prohibitively expensive to fix. (I'd like to have known about this before I paid €170 for a new pump.)

Over the next few days we continue to have problems with error messages from the control panel. After a few washes the clothes don't seem to be spun out properly. Eventually the machine ceases to wash properly and fills up with water. We basically have the same problem we began with except the machine isn't so loud!

We call the guy back and he suggests a number of things we can do none of which work. We ring some other repair places and they won’t come near the machine because of someone else’s faulty work and because we've already put €170 into it. One place suggests we ask him to take back the motor he fitted and refund us. We do this but unfortunately the guy refuses and gets quite unprofessional.

I have a new machine ordered and have taken out the pump before we dispose of the old machine.

Is this something the small claims court would entertain? I have records of text messages and phone calls as well as a receipt for the repair along with the pump and receipt for the new machine. I am unsure what other evidence they would look for? Am I wasting time, money and energy?

I would appreciate any comments.

the_pen_turner

I think you have ruined any chance by taking the pump out

Lollymcd

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I think you have ruined any chance by taking the pump out

Just wonder why? Washing machine is gone now.

guil

Lollymcd wrote: »

Just wonder why? Washing machine is gone now.

You're not qualified to remove it, same as you're not qualified to do anything with it and keep the warranty.

kirving

I would also suspect that due to it having a control panel with error messages then it's a expensive and high quality model. Remember that within Irish law, products should last a "Reasonable" length of time regardless of the manufacturers warranty.

Did you call the manufacturer, or a third party to fix it? Non-mechanical problems on home appliances are notoriously difficult to fix and may require specialist diagnostic equipment that the third party repair companies may not have.

At this stage though, you've lost any hope of recourse by removing the motor yourself, and may be best to just sell it on eBay at this stage.

Lollymcd

The machine was eight years old so we did not contact the manufacturer about it. We've since bought a new machine and gotten rid of the old one. Still have the replacement pump which we removed.

We asked the repair man to take back the pump and give us a refund as the repair didn't work but he refused. It's the repair man I'd like to make a case against at the Small Claims Court.

Does this seem like something that would be entertained there?

Thank you for all replies thus far.

L1011

I would imagine you've a decent enough chance. You aren't going to get more than the cost of his repair (labour and parts) less the €25 fee, though.

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

I would imagine you've a decent enough chance. You aren't going to get more than the cost of his repair (labour and parts) less the €25 fee, though.

how can you prove that the repair that was carried out isn't correct or didn't last.

I would hope any judge would laugh you out of court for turning up with no machine ,report of what's wrong with it and with all the repairman's wears torn out of the machine

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

how can you prove that the repair that was carried out isn't correct or didn't last.

I would hope any judge would laugh you out of court for turning up with no machine ,report of what's wrong with it and with all the repairman's wears torn out of the machine

Repairman specified an (expensive) repair that would fix, and it didn't. Does not take responsibility afterwards.

You are not likely to even have a hearing and even if you did you aren't going to turn up with the machine.

This thread is suffering horribly from people who aren't reading the posts, hence the references to the manufacturer when they were never in the equation.

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

Repairman specified an (expensive) repair that would fix, and it didn't. Does not take responsibility afterwards.

You are not likely to even have a hearing and even if you did you aren't going to turn up with the machine.

This thread is suffering horribly from people who aren't reading the posts, hence the references to the manufacturer when they were never in the equation.

it might have been expensive but it is what was required. (assuming repairman knew his job)
his repair did work , it was fine when he was there. then later it showed another issue or separate part of the first problem

of course you wouldn't bring the machine to court but it should be still in your possession .
you probably would end in court if the repairman stands up for himself
what happens if the courts want the repair man to fix it

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it might have been expensive but it is what was required. (assuming repairman knew his job)
his repair did work , it was fine when he was there. then later it showed another issue or separate part of the first problem

It didn't work - it got them to the same erratic error code, that's it.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

of course you wouldn't bring the machine to court but it should be still in your possession .
you probably would end in court if the repairman stands up for himself
what happens if the courts want the repair man to fix it

No requirement to even mention you don't have it anymore. The court are not going to ask him to fix it. He already refused to, that's the end of that. He no longer has the "let me fix it" option when he refused to. If this is the only answer they give they're getting a judgement against them - and have wasted their time defending.

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

It didn't work - it got them to the same erratic error code, that's it.



No requirement to even mention you don't have it anymore. The court are not going to ask him to fix it. He already refused to, that's the end of that. He no longer has the "let me fix it" option when he refused to. If this is the only answer they give they're getting a judgement against them - and have wasted their time defending.

it worked while the repair man was there. the error codes were later when the op tried to use the machine , this doesn't mean that the machine is fixed and jobs finished it only means that one step towards fixing it has happened.
sometimes that ere are several issues with a machine and sometimes one issue has caused others that are not seen until the first is fixed


where does the op say that the repair man refused to fix it again.
they say that the repair man offered some advice to help and that other repair men refused to touch it (blaming the 1st guy is common but not based on facts)

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it worked while the repair man was there. the error codes were later when the op tried to use the machine , this doesn't mean that the machine is fixed and jobs finished it only means that one step towards fixing it has happened.
sometimes that ere are several issues with a machine and sometimes one issue has caused others that are not seen until the first is fixed

An intermittent error 'working while the repairman was there' does not equal the fix they were paid for. They offered an expensive, useless, fix and are not taking responsibility for it.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

where does the op say that the repair man refused to fix it again.
they say that the repair man offered some advice to help and that other repair men refused to touch it (blaming the 1st guy is common but not based on facts)

He didn't offer a working fix; and when asked to refund the cost of his failed 'fix' "refuses and gets quite unprofessional. "

I imagine that even if he attempts to defend this it'll be awarded to the OP.

the_pen_turner

he refused to refund the money
it doesn't say he refused to repair it some more.


the op saying that the repair man got unprofessional means nothing to me. I would like to hear the facts of what was said.
I would guess that the op started giving out and complaining . the repair man then got sick of the op and told the op where to go.

reading between the lines and going on previous history with repair men I would guess that the repairman said that it was un economical to spend any more on chasing problems . the control panel was the actual problem but the control panel was showing that the motor was gone. the repair man inspected the motor and confirmed that it was worn ( the op said it reduced the noise so the motor was worn)

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

he refused to refund the money
it doesn't say he refused to repair it some more.

He offered alternative fixes, that didn't work. He never offered another repair.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the op saying that the repair man got unprofessional means nothing to me. I would like to hear the facts of what was said.
I would guess that the op started giving out and complaining . the repair man then got sick of the op and told the op where to go.

reading between the lines and going on previous history with repair men I would guess that the repairman said that it was un economical to spend any more on chasing problems . the control panel was the actual problem but the control panel was showing that the motor was gone. the repair man inspected the motor and confirmed that it was worn ( the op said it reduced the noise so the motor was worn)

The SCC procedure is very blunt. The repairman cocking up, refusing a refund and giving useless alternatives means he's probably going to get ruled against.

You are guessing well beyond what was said in the thread here with your suppositions there - which flies in the face of demanding citations for other stuff. Pick one concept - facts or supposition - and stick with it!

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

He offered alternative fixes, that didn't work. He never offered another repair.



The SCC procedure is very blunt. The repairman cocking up, refusing a refund and giving useless alternatives means he's probably going to get ruled against.

the repair man offered fixed that didn't work. did the op ring him again to see about repairing it some more. I don't know but it states that the op rang other companies so I can presume the op didn't and the repair man didn't know the offerings didn't work


how did the repair man cock up. the motor was worn (op says it makes less noise so was worn)
why should he offer a refund if he did his job. he fixed on of the problems with the machine. it sounds like there was a second problem . upon discovering that problem he probably felt that it was not worth fixing.

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the repair man offered fixed that didn't work. did the op ring him again to see about repairing it some more. I don't know but it states that the op rang other companies so I can presume the op didn't and the repair man didn't know the offerings didn't work


how did the repair man cock up. the motor was worn (op says it makes less noise so was worn)
why should he offer a refund if he did his job. he fixed on of the problems with the machine. it sounds like there was a second problem . upon discovering that problem he probably felt that it was not worth fixing.

He offered the motor (/pump, as I think it was) replacement as the fix for the job when it wasn't. A washer (actually any electric) motor can be noisy and still fully function.

You are making masses of suppositions here despite having otherwise demanded references.

SCC procedures are very blunt and I suspect the OP will get what they're asking for. Remember the OPs query is solely about success at the SCC, not hypothetical supposition about the work done as you have spent much time working on clearly.

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

He offered the motor replacement as the fix for the job when it wasn't. A washer (actually any electric) motor can be noisy and still fully function.

You are making masses of suppositions here despite having otherwise demanded references.

SCC procedures are very blunt and I suspect the OP will get what they're asking for - without bringing the machine along as you suggested!

of course motors make noise but 8 year old motors would have worn bearings and other problems that would make them noisy . a noisy motor is a sure sign that its on the way out.
the motor was a fix for that part of the problem. it just wasn't a fix for both problems.


I have made requests for referenced when the facts weren't there or were twisted a bit.
when I have given my opinion I have said it was only my opinion.
I might be wrong. im not claiming it as fact just speculating on what I think actually happened

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

of course motors make noise but 8 year old motors would have worn bearings and other problems that would make them noisy . a noisy motor is a sure sign that its on the way out.
the motor was a fix for that part of the problem. it just wasn't a fix for both problems.


I have made requests for referenced when the facts weren't there or were twisted a bit.
when I have given my opinion I have said it was only my opinion.
I might be wrong. im not claiming it as fact just speculating on what I think actually happened

I dumped a fully working but noisy as hell 1998 washing machine early last year for water and power consumption reasons. I would never consider noise as a sign of failure until it actually fails. If their repairman thought "replace the noisy thing" was troubleshooting and fault finding he deserves to have to refund the costs. It didn't fix the problem that was reported.

You asked for references to try suggest things were only opinion, then speculated like crazy. Not balanced.

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

I dumped a fully working but noisy as hell 1998 washing machine early last year for water and power consumption reasons. I would never consider noise as a sign of failure until it actually fails. If their repairman thought "replace the noisy thing" was troubleshooting and fault finding he deserves to have to refund the costs. It didn't fix the problem that was reported.

You asked for references to try suggest things were only opinion, then speculated like crazy. Not balanced.

im not saying that noise is a reason to through out a working machine. what I am saying is that when the fault was reported . the control panel probably showed it was the motor or the machine showed signs of motor problems. the repair man would inspect the motor and know by the feel of it that the bearings were worn or he could have turned it on and heard that the motor was noisy.
with the machine showing motor problem or by symptoms reported by the op the repair man would combine this with the worn motor and replace the worn motor


stop trying to make this a fight. you stated facts that were not there. I pointed that out.
then I speculated on what I thought happened. I didn't suggest that my speculations are facts just opinions

L1011

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im not saying that noise is a reason to through out a working machine. what I am saying is that when the fault was reported . the control panel probably showed it was the motor or the machine showed signs of motor problems. the repair man would inspect the motor and know by the feel of it that the bearings were worn or he could have turned it on and heard that the motor was noisy.
with the machine showing motor problem or by symptoms reported by the op the repair man would combine this with the worn motor and replace the worn motor

You implied that noise suggested a failed motor and that would cover the other issues off; and that the other issues still appearing isn't indicative of bad fault finding and poor workmanship. Even if (more speculation on your part) a control panel shows an error code, trusting it blindly is poor workmanship.

The original repairman did a poor job, did not fix the fault and the work he did appears needless. Those are facts.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

stop trying to make this a fight. you stated facts that were not there. I pointed that out.
then I speculated on what I thought happened. I didn't suggest that my speculations are facts just opinions

I'm not trying to make this a fight. I'm pointing out that you have appalling double standards and are ignoring the OPs query entirely.

If you are going to run off speculating, stop demanding proof for things you believe are speculation (due to not looking at the thread in full). If you can speculate everyone else can.

For the OPs actual query they have far more than enough to start an SCC procedure.

the_pen_turner

L1011 wrote: »

You implied that noise suggested a failed motor and that would cover the other issues off; and that the other issues still appearing isn't indicative of bad fault finding and poor workmanship. Even if (more speculation on your part) a control panel shows an error code, trusting it blindly is poor workmanship.

The original repairman did a poor job, did not fix the fault and the work he did appears needless. Those are facts.



I'm not trying to make this a fight. I'm pointing out that you have appalling double standards and are ignoring the OPs query entirely.

If you are going to run off speculating, stop demanding proof for things you believe are speculation (due to not looking at the thread in full). If you can speculate everyone else can.

For the OPs actual query they have far more than enough to start an SCC procedure.

these are not facts
we don't know the facts . we know what the op tells us and have to take them as fact. I never said there was an error code. I am saying that the repairman inspected the machine and through diagnostics on the machine or by testing the machine he made the judgment that it could be the motor,
he then inspected the pump and found it worn(if he didn't he couldn't have worked out to change the pump).
I wouldn't say that the pump replacement was needless. the op said it was noisy and the noise was less after the repair.



I don't see double standards.
you claimed the op said things that are not in the op as if they were facts.

I have separated my opinions from the facts and am not claiming them to be facts just my opinion.


I understand the op query very well. they want to know if they can recoup the money they paid to a repair man to fix their machine. he fixed it . it showed another fault or another symptom of the same fault. they asked for a refund , repair man refused. op claims repairman was unprofessional but hasn't elaborated on what that means. . op destroyed machine and removed repair mans part without any training on how to do it properly.



op has now no leg to stand on in court.

L1011

You've mixed more opinions and suppositions in to that post and then claim to keep them separate... I'm very glad you're not involved in adjudicating disputes!