I just thought I would bore you all with a recent experience I have had with a Triton shower spare - a heating can with a failed element after 7 months. By way of background, I replaced the original due to severe kettling after 4 years of use, and had no problem with having to do that.
This was my email to Triton on Friday:
Subject: Sale of Goods Act, is 90 days a reasonable lifespan for a Triton Enlight heating can?
I have just spoken to one of your members of customer service who claims that although the heating can assembly purchased from yourselves on the XX March 2013 (just over 7 months ago) under invoice XXXXXXX has now FAILED on one of the heating elements (open circuit as tested today), you think this perfectly reasonable and can only suggest I buy another, as your standard guarantee on spares is only 90 days.
The new one could presumably fail again in another 90 days, and this would also be, presumably, a reasonable lifespan?
Would you please tell me whether you feel that the Sale of Goods Act applies in this circumstance, and whether you truly feel it is reasonable that I should have to replace a heating can assembly so frequently? Given that the previous can lasted 4 years, I hardly feel that a year's life is an unreasonable expectation for such a part.
Could you please let me know whether we can agree on a partial refund of the cost of the spare, or a replacement (if we can establish the can was not misused), or whether we have to agree to dispute this point?
Kind regards,
etc etc
I received the following reply today: (since the reply is confidential and may not be passed on, I have changed the precise wording, but the meaning is as near as damnit unaltered):
Dear Mr Grillo
Thank you for your email of the 25 October 2013 sent at half four and received at our office.
Our showers and spares are made to all the necessary standards for BEAB approval and are are examined thoroughly to ensure quality control however, as with any machine, parts can last different lengths of time.
The spare you purchased carries a 90 day warranty from when fitted as is shown both on the invoice and in our T&Cs thus, I cannot help you as far as a refund or courtesy replacement part is concerned.
Yours sincerely
etc etc.
What surprises me is that the point made seems to be not whether or not the item was correctly handled and fitted, or whether the Sale of Goods Act applies, but simply that whatever is in the T&Cs stands (even if it is an unfair term???). It strikes me that the advisor is saying that 90 days is indeed a fair innings for an element!
Was my original request of a partial refund unreasonable, and is this typical for spare parts? Seems to defeat the object of making spares at all if they are only expected to last 90 days...
This was my email to Triton on Friday:
Subject: Sale of Goods Act, is 90 days a reasonable lifespan for a Triton Enlight heating can?
I have just spoken to one of your members of customer service who claims that although the heating can assembly purchased from yourselves on the XX March 2013 (just over 7 months ago) under invoice XXXXXXX has now FAILED on one of the heating elements (open circuit as tested today), you think this perfectly reasonable and can only suggest I buy another, as your standard guarantee on spares is only 90 days.
The new one could presumably fail again in another 90 days, and this would also be, presumably, a reasonable lifespan?
Would you please tell me whether you feel that the Sale of Goods Act applies in this circumstance, and whether you truly feel it is reasonable that I should have to replace a heating can assembly so frequently? Given that the previous can lasted 4 years, I hardly feel that a year's life is an unreasonable expectation for such a part.
Could you please let me know whether we can agree on a partial refund of the cost of the spare, or a replacement (if we can establish the can was not misused), or whether we have to agree to dispute this point?
Kind regards,
etc etc
I received the following reply today: (since the reply is confidential and may not be passed on, I have changed the precise wording, but the meaning is as near as damnit unaltered):
Dear Mr Grillo
Thank you for your email of the 25 October 2013 sent at half four and received at our office.
Our showers and spares are made to all the necessary standards for BEAB approval and are are examined thoroughly to ensure quality control however, as with any machine, parts can last different lengths of time.
The spare you purchased carries a 90 day warranty from when fitted as is shown both on the invoice and in our T&Cs thus, I cannot help you as far as a refund or courtesy replacement part is concerned.
Yours sincerely
etc etc.
What surprises me is that the point made seems to be not whether or not the item was correctly handled and fitted, or whether the Sale of Goods Act applies, but simply that whatever is in the T&Cs stands (even if it is an unfair term???). It strikes me that the advisor is saying that 90 days is indeed a fair innings for an element!
Was my original request of a partial refund unreasonable, and is this typical for spare parts? Seems to defeat the object of making spares at all if they are only expected to last 90 days...
