2 year old dishwasher broken

James Bond Junior

My Zanussi dishwasher has broken down. The drain pump is sticking on and the machine is beeping. I called into the shop I bought it from today and they said an engineer visit is needed and a €75 fee for said engineer. I (politely) asked what my rights were with regard to the sale of goods act and was told this was the protocol they needed to follow.

I've fought and won on an issue like this previously with Panasonic but it was a 23 month old sound system where as this is a 26 month old dishwasher.
What are my rights here before I go spouting "I know my rights!!!" I purposely avoided harvey norman et al and bought from a family owned electrical shop so as to avoid any issues if things went wrong.

L1011

Drain pump running constantly? Usually a dirty sensor. Or sticking as in not moving? Stuck bit of food in the impeller blades.

You have rights for manufacturing defects, a jammed or jammed on pump may not be due to a manufacturing defect at all.

CeilingFly

Quite normal for a fee to be charged for a call out. If its a verifiable fault caused by poor manufacture / manufacturer fault it should be refunded.

However if its not and caused by usage, then fee stays.

As its extremely difficult to get payment from many people after a visit, most places insist on it beforehand

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

Drain pump running constantly? Usually a dirty sensor. Or sticking as in not moving? Stuck bit of food in the impeller blades.

You have rights for manufacturing defects, a jammed or jammed on pump may not be due to a manufacturing defect at all.

This is simply not true. The law is quite clear. goods must be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. The issue here is what is a reasonable length of time for this item to last. I would suggest 3 years at minimum, feel free to disagree:)

CeilingFly

bill66 wrote: »

This is simply not true. The law is quite clear. goods must be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. The issue here is what is a reasonable length of time for this item to last. I would suggest 3 years at minimum, feel free to disagree:)

So if someone puts a load of chicken bones in a dishwasher and it causes malfunction, you think a retailer should be responsible (not saying this is what has happened)

Only verifiable manufacturer defects causing an item not to perform as expected are covered under sale of goods act.

If the issue is caused by user error, the retailer is not responsible.

bill66

CeilingFly wrote: »

So if someone puts a load of chicken bones in a dishwasher and it causes malfunction, you think a retailer should be responsible (not saying this is what has happened)

Only verifiable manufacturer defects causing an item not to perform as expected are covered under sale of goods act.

If the issue is caused by user error, the retailer is not responsible.

You are moving the goalposts all over the place here. Assuming normal use to a reasonable person the goods have to last a reasonable time. That is the law. There is nothing in the legislation that puts any onus whatsoever on the consumer to prove manufacturer defects. The relevant section is 14 paragraph 3:

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

This is simply not true. The law is quite clear. goods must be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. The issue here is what is a reasonable length of time for this item to last. I would suggest 3 years at minimum, feel free to disagree:)

Sorry, it is entirely true.

Dirty sensors or jammed pumps are not manufacturing defects and are entirely not covered. Those are the most likely causes of issues here

Manufacturers do not need to cover the cost of showing you them.

CeilingFly

Read the manual of any dishwasher - it will tell you that all excess food should be cleaned off items before placing them into the machine.

So if the fault is caused by debris clogging something, its not covered, hence a call out fee will be charged - and then refunded if it is a genuine fault.

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

Sorry, it is entirely true.

Dirty sensors or jammed pumps are not manufacturing defects and are entirely not covered. Those are the most likely causes of issues here

Manufacturers do not need to cover the cost of showing you them.

Sorry not true, if it is please post the relevant section of the legislation that states it is. Merchantable quality clause covers everything and is not movable.

It is easy to argue a machine that has a jammed pump after only 2 years is not fit for purpose.

My advice for the OP would be to issue small claims court papers if the seller will not cooperate. In my experience once faced with court, most businesses fold pretty quickly when they realise what the law says.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

Sorry not true, if it is please post the relevant section of the legislation that states it is. Merchantable quality clause covers everything and is not movable.

It is easy to argue a machine that has a jammed pump after only 2 years is not fit for purpose.

My advice for the OP would be to issue small claims court papers if the seller will not cooperate. In my experience once faced with court, most businesses fold pretty quickly when they realise what the law says.

A pump jammed with food items due to not scraping plates (this is probably the most common cause of it) is due to misuse of the machine and is never covered. Its also usually fixed by removing the obstruction. The OP would need to prove it was actually seized and for another reason.

Merchantable quality does not cover this, at all, ever. You do not understand the legislation, so citing it isn't much use.

Small claims would not entertain "my dishwasher has stopped working, I don't know why and I haven't had anyone look at it"

bill66

CeilingFly wrote: »

Read the manual of any dishwasher - it will tell you that all excess food should be cleaned off items before placing them into the machine.

So if the fault is caused by debris clogging something, its not covered, hence a call out fee will be charged - and then refunded if it is a genuine fault.

No , dishwashers are bought by most people to wash dishes, if they can't do that, they are not fit for purpose. I would love to see someone stand in front of a judge and argue that a dishwasher is only good for cleaning already cleaned plates. This will never happen and if it did they would definitely lose.

noodler

bill66 wrote: »

No , dishwashers are bought by most people to wash dishes, if they can't do that, they are not fit for purpose. I would love to see someone stand in front of a judge and argue that a dishwasher is only good for cleaning already cleaned plates. This will never happen and if it did they would definitely lose.

You are being very unreasonable.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

No , dishwashers are bought by most people to wash dishes, if they can't do that, they are not fit for purpose. I would love to see someone stand in front of a judge and argue that a dishwasher is only good for cleaning already cleaned plates. This will never happen and if it did they would definitely lose.

The instructions are blatantly clear, if you haven't followed those no judge is going to award you anything.

Small claims is not some rapid, magic panacea

I must point out the OP said he was trying to avoid the "I know my rights!", despite which you are doing specifically that - stating broad things as if they were inaliable rights. They aren't. There is no right to get a free service call for a dishwasher after 26 months.

CeilingFly

bill66 wrote: »

No , dishwashers are bought by most people to wash dishes, if they can't do that, they are not fit for purpose. I would love to see someone stand in front of a judge and argue that a dishwasher is only good for cleaning already cleaned plates. This will never happen and if it did they would definitely lose.

Sorry judge, I couldn't be bothered to read the instructions - I thought the automatic car would drive itself and then it crashed and thus I am suing the manufacturer.

Yep, your argument is THAT ridiculous

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

A pump jammed with food items due to not scraping plates (this is probably the most common cause of it) is due to misuse of the machine and is never covered. Its also usually fixed by removing the obstruction. The OP would need to prove it was actually seized and for another reason.

Merchantable quality does not cover this, at all, ever. You do not understand the legislation, so citing it isn't much use.

Small claims would not entertain "my dishwasher has stopped working, I don't know why and I haven't had anyone look at it"

It is clear that you have no understanding of the legislation and your lack of knowledge would suggest you have never even read it. The small claims is exactly where this kind of case is accepted every day of the week.

They would certainly accept "my dishwasher has stopped working and the retailer refuses to do anything about it unless I pay them €75".

which is the situation here and not the one you made up to support your spurious argument.

bill66

CeilingFly wrote: »

Sorry judge, I couldn't be bothered to read the instructions - I thought the automatic car would drive itself and then it crashed and thus I am suing the manufacturer.

Yep, your argument is THAT ridiculous

Oh dear, straw man alert. A reasonable person would not expect a car to drive it self but would expect a dishwasher to was dishes.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

It is clear that you have no understanding of the legislation and your lack of knowledge would suggest you have never even read it. The small claims is exactly where this kind of case is accepted every day of the week.

They would certainly accept "my dishwasher has stopped working and the retailer refuses to do anything about it unless I pay them €75".

which is the situation here and not the one you made up to support your spurious argument.

I have read the legislation, and understand it. You may have read it but you clearly don't understand it at all.

The arguments here are not spurious, you are giving terrible "advice" to the OP that will result in nothing being done for weeks/months and most likely them losing a €25 SCC fee with no further outcome.

Dishwashers do not wash heavily soiled dishes - nobody expects them to, and no judge would accept it as reasonable to expect them to do so. Instruction manuals insist on dishes being scraped or rinsed; pumps usually stop working due to food blockages so it neither a made up situation or a spurious argument.

If the OP follows your advice, they will be back here in February with a still not working dishwasher and a lighter wallet.

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

The instructions are blatantly clear, if you haven't followed those no judge is going to award you anything.

Small claims is not some rapid, magic panacea

I must point out the OP said he was trying to avoid the "I know my rights!", despite which you are doing specifically that - stating broad things as if they were inaliable rights. They aren't. There is no right to get a free service call for a dishwasher after 26 months.

Please point to where i said OP has a right to a free service call. You can't.
What the OP is entitled to is fair treatment from the seller as laid out in the legislation. Knowing your rights is not a negative attribute. It puts you in a position where you are at less risk of being exploited or taken advantage of. This makes some people very angry. I will leave you to ponder what type of people they are.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

Please point to where i said OP has a right to a free service call. You can't.
What the OP is entitled to is fair treatment from the seller as laid out in the legislation. Knowing your rights is not a negative attribute. It puts you in a position where you are at less risk of being exploited or taken advantage of. This makes some people very angry. I will leave you to ponder what type of people they are.

Fair treatment for a 26 month old dishwasher with a fault almost solely caused by misuse is a charged service visit. If it is a case that the pump has actually seized due to other concerns they can look at further actions.

You do not actually know your rights - you have a vague idea, at best. Going in demanding stuff you aren't entitled to is what the OP stated they didn't want to do, and is what you are advising them to do - with clear, unwanted consequences. Namely an unworking dishwasher and less cash.

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

I have read the legislation, and understand it. You may have read it but you clearly don't understand it at all.

The arguments here are not spurious, you are giving terrible "advice" to the OP that will result in nothing being done for weeks/months and most likely them losing a €25 SCC fee with no further outcome.

Dishwashers do not wash heavily soiled dishes - nobody expects them to, and no judge would accept it as reasonable to expect them to do so. Instruction manuals insist on dishes being scraped or rinsed; pumps usually stop working due to food blockages so it neither a made up situation or a spurious argument.

If the OP follows your advice, they will be back here in February with a still not working dishwasher and a lighter wallet.

Wow its clear you have some vested interest in denying people fair treatment.
I would bet a pound to a penny that this would be a walkover in court given that the seller refuses to even look at the machine without payment. If they follow your advice they will be €75 down.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

Wow its clear you have some vested interest in denying people fair treatment.
I would bet a pound to a penny that this would be a walkover in court given that the seller refuses to even look at the machine without payment. If they follow your advice they will be €75 down.

I have no vested interest. My interest is in a rapid outcome for the OP.

Your suggestion is going to leave them without a dishwasher until the new year - and despite your confidence, almost certainly still a broken dishwasher and a loss of the fee; because your confidence is based on thinking you can ignore instruction manuals and blindly go to the SCC with no evidence that it is a manufacturing defect. You can't.

You are giving terrible advice.

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

I have no vested interest. My interest is in a rapid outcome for the OP.

Your suggestion is going to leave them without a dishwasher until the new year.

Your interest is in relieving them of €75 as quickly as possible.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

Your interest is in relieving them of €75 as quickly as possible.

If I had a tenner for every time I've been accused of having vested interests / working for a firm on here when someone has run out of an argument I'd be very wealthy. As I would be on all the salaries from all the firms I apparently work for.

However - speculation on who a poster is, who they work for, etc is banned on boards.ie as a whole.

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

I have no vested interest. My interest is in a rapid outcome for the OP.

Your suggestion is going to leave them without a dishwasher until the new year - and despite your confidence, almost certainly still a broken dishwasher and a loss of the fee; because your confidence is based on thinking you can ignore instruction manuals and blindly go to the SCC with no evidence that it is a manufacturing defect. You can't.

You are giving terrible advice.

I have read the OP again and can't find where it is admitted that they have been ignoring the instruction manual. Perhaps you can highlight it for me. You are giving the advice all retailers try to give, not everyone falls for it.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

I have read the OP again and can't find where it is admitted that they have been ignoring the instruction manual. Perhaps you can highlight it for me. You are giving the advice all retailers try to give, not everyone falls for it.

You brought up the concept of ignoring manufacturer requirements to scrap/rinse plates; not the OP. However, it is going to be the first thing the retailer says in reply to any SCC claim. And no - it is not reasonable to ignore instructions.

And if the OP follows your advice to not get that checked and push straight on to the SCC, they could be in for a surprise; after a massive time waste.

Again - you are giving utterly terrible advice here. Please stop.

bill66

L1011 wrote: »

If I had a tenner for every time I've been accused of having vested interests / working for a firm on here when someone has run out of an argument I'd be very wealthy. As I would be on all the salaries from all the firms I apparently work for.

However - speculation on who a poster is, who they work for, etc is banned on boards.ie as a whole.

This is priceless. You don't even understand the phrase vested interest and yet you claim to understand consumer legislation. Please show where I have speculated on who you work for. Yet again you can't.

L1011

bill66 wrote: »

This is priceless. You don't even understand the phrase vested interest and yet you claim to understand consumer legislation. Please show where I have speculated on who you work for. Yet again you can't.

You don't understand the word "etc". Accusing posters of vested interests is not allowed.

I do not have any vested interest in this. Any further accusations (against any poster) will result in moderation action, as there has been multiple warnings.

ArnieSilvia

Sensors, pumps etc should have a number of protecting strainers before food gets there, otherwise poor design and not fit for purpose.

In other words, no matter how heavily soiled dishes, food particles shouldn't get near the motor.

Blocked strainer, dishwasher alarm due to overfilling - this should be the sequence of events.

This whole attitude of selling us underdeveloped, unvalidated, poorly made with cheap parts equipment with planned obsolescence should end.

Prime example Zanussi/Indesit washing machines and their pathetic bearings.

Water John

We'll have to ask, The man on the Clapham Bus, as to what is reasonable use?

bill66

Water John wrote: »

We'll have to ask, The man on the Clapham Bus, as to what is reasonable use?

Absolutely

happywithlife

bill66 wrote: »

No , dishwashers are bought by most people to wash dishes, if they can't do that, they are not fit for purpose. I would love to see someone stand in front of a judge and argue that a dishwasher is only good for cleaning already cleaned plates. This will never happen and if it did they would definitely lose.

If this was a fault within the first yr I'd agree but this is over 2 yrs old.
Loads of variable questions come into play- has the dishwasher been used according to instructions? Has it been maintained? Is it cleaned regularly? Is there hard/soft water in the area? Does the op use the recommended detergent or a lesser quality cheap brand?
I could go on
My thinking would be a call out fee would be reasonable after 26 months
What is the warranty on the machine? Are parts covered I wonder?