Door locks - do I have a case?
Discussion
Hi folks
Would really appreciate some advice on the following:
June 21st 2021 I was forced to change the front door lock on my home at short notice. The engineer came from Able Group and charged me £165 for the job. It seemed a bit toppy at the time, but I needed it doing urgently so paid without question.
About 3 months ago the lock started to play up. Essentially it would undo all the deadbolt bits of the door, but when it came to the final spring latch it would just spin past it, almost as if it was slipping off the 'cam'.
I changed to a new key and the problem appeared to go away, but it came back a few weeks later, ditto with a third key a few weeks after that.
I've been away on business and got back over the weekend and at this point not even a new key would open the door, so this morning, first thing, I called Able.
They said that the fault might be with the door mechanism itself, but that the lock unit was 6 days out of warranty . I protested the latter comment, and they agreed to send an engineer today to take a look. They told me that the cost would be £130 for the lock, plus more for the door mechanism. I said that I needed the door fixing, but that I objected to paying for a lock. If it was a door fault then I'd happily cough up.
I was advised to e mail the management which I decided to do once the facts were known.
The engineer came this afternoon and basically the door is fine, it's the lock that is faulty. So the lock was replaced. He gave me a piece of paper and went on his way. The company then called me for payment and I informed them that I was in the process of writing to the management, as had been suggested to me. I sent the management a note (pleasant) together with a short video that clearly shows the faulty lock operation.
I respectfully asked for them to make the replacement FOC (I also pointed out that the engineer had written on the form "no fault found with lock, when this was so blatantly untrue)
Anyway, the company is saying no deal, and wants payment cos I am 6 days out of warranty. Am I barking up the wrong tree in thinking this is absolutely unacceptable?
Would really appreciate some advice on the following:
June 21st 2021 I was forced to change the front door lock on my home at short notice. The engineer came from Able Group and charged me £165 for the job. It seemed a bit toppy at the time, but I needed it doing urgently so paid without question.
About 3 months ago the lock started to play up. Essentially it would undo all the deadbolt bits of the door, but when it came to the final spring latch it would just spin past it, almost as if it was slipping off the 'cam'.
I changed to a new key and the problem appeared to go away, but it came back a few weeks later, ditto with a third key a few weeks after that.
I've been away on business and got back over the weekend and at this point not even a new key would open the door, so this morning, first thing, I called Able.
They said that the fault might be with the door mechanism itself, but that the lock unit was 6 days out of warranty . I protested the latter comment, and they agreed to send an engineer today to take a look. They told me that the cost would be £130 for the lock, plus more for the door mechanism. I said that I needed the door fixing, but that I objected to paying for a lock. If it was a door fault then I'd happily cough up.
I was advised to e mail the management which I decided to do once the facts were known.
The engineer came this afternoon and basically the door is fine, it's the lock that is faulty. So the lock was replaced. He gave me a piece of paper and went on his way. The company then called me for payment and I informed them that I was in the process of writing to the management, as had been suggested to me. I sent the management a note (pleasant) together with a short video that clearly shows the faulty lock operation.
I respectfully asked for them to make the replacement FOC (I also pointed out that the engineer had written on the form "no fault found with lock, when this was so blatantly untrue)
Anyway, the company is saying no deal, and wants payment cos I am 6 days out of warranty. Am I barking up the wrong tree in thinking this is absolutely unacceptable?
No ideas for a name said:
I have to ask, was it just the euro cylinder they chnaged for £165?
Yes, the original unit came with the (German made) front door, but keys were lost and I needed an urgent replacement.They told me that the new lock would be vastly superior to the old one…. It wasn’t!
I would politely decline their request for payment and factually state your reasons for doing so. (you kept the faulty parts, initial invoice and can evidence the replacement keys to try and fix the problem right?)
Given the relatively low balance of probability of winning and the low amount they won't be issuing a small claims action, even then you could always come to an agreement afterwards if they did.
Given the relatively low balance of probability of winning and the low amount they won't be issuing a small claims action, even then you could always come to an agreement afterwards if they did.
kiethton said:
I would politely decline their request for payment and factually state your reasons for doing so. (you kept the faulty parts, initial invoice and can evidence the replacement keys to try and fix the problem right?)
Given the relatively low balance of probability of winning and the low amount they won't be issuing a small claims action, even then you could always come to an agreement afterwards if they did.
I have kept everything…. Thanks for the advice, much appreciated. Given the relatively low balance of probability of winning and the low amount they won't be issuing a small claims action, even then you could always come to an agreement afterwards if they did.
andymadmak said:
Anyway, the company is saying no deal, and wants payment cos I am 6 days out of warranty. Am I barking up the wrong tree in thinking this is absolutely unacceptable?
The warranty is irrelevant in this case. The key thing is the rights you have under the consumer rights act.Have a look at https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation...
To quote "You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
One aspect of a product being of satisfactory quality is durability, in other words how long it lasts.
Durability takes into account many different factors like product type, brand reputation, price point and how it is advertised."
It is quite clear that the product they supplied was not durable and you are claiming your right under the act.
CoolHands said:
But still, the one they fitted didn’t last 6 months.
Surely you mean twelve months if it was fitted in June 2021?In hindsight the OP should have contacted them as soon as it started playing up, let alone two 'keys' later. Now it's over the twelve month period I think the OP has an uphill battle.
andymadmak said:
Anyway, the company is saying no deal, and wants payment cos I am 6 days out of warranty. Am I barking up the wrong tree in thinking this is absolutely unacceptable?
Technically I fear they're right, because it was out of warranty when you informed them. But can you prove that the company led you to believe that the repair would be free as a 'gesture of goodwill'?I think a chat over the phone with a decision maker might be the best way forward.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethi...
Regardless of any warranty the seller offers, your legal rights (as I understand them, IANAL) are :
Repair / replacement / refund for up to six years. It all depends on how long the product should be reasonably expected to last and allowance is made for how much use you've had. e.g. if a product is expected to last six years, and it fails after three then a 50% refund might be considered reasonable.
The key word is reasonable.
Within the first six months it is up to the vendor to prove that the product did not have a defect present at time of manufacture. i.e. prove that the customer broke the product if they don't want to honour the warranty.
After the first six months it's up to the consumer to prove that there was a fault present at the time of manufacture and that you didn't break the goods.
Have a read about your your rights under the CRA before replying to them again.
Regardless of any warranty the seller offers, your legal rights (as I understand them, IANAL) are :
Repair / replacement / refund for up to six years. It all depends on how long the product should be reasonably expected to last and allowance is made for how much use you've had. e.g. if a product is expected to last six years, and it fails after three then a 50% refund might be considered reasonable.
The key word is reasonable.
Within the first six months it is up to the vendor to prove that the product did not have a defect present at time of manufacture. i.e. prove that the customer broke the product if they don't want to honour the warranty.
After the first six months it's up to the consumer to prove that there was a fault present at the time of manufacture and that you didn't break the goods.
Have a read about your your rights under the CRA before replying to them again.
BrokenSkunk said:
Have a read about your your rights under the CRA before replying to them again.
A very good point. The CRA is the bedrock for this dispute so check your position against it, then tailor your approach accordingly.Here is a nice clear summary: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation...
BrokenSkunk said:
....
After the first six months it's up to the consumer to prove that there was a fault present at the time of manufacture....
I've had a few of these disputes and if the supplier digs their heels in they usually rely on the above - which mean you're pretty stuffed if the item has worked fine for some peiod of time. After the first six months it's up to the consumer to prove that there was a fault present at the time of manufacture....
John Lewis was one of the most hard-faced - sent me an email saying if you think it's down to us then prove it.
Thank you to everyone.
Well, things have progressed this morning! Apparently, according to the company, locks made of steel and brass should be considered 'perishable items', (their words) and so I should pay again (albeit with a bit of a discount)
I have politely refused and invited them to come and collect their product asap.
Interestingly when they fitted the (now broken) lock 12 months ago they told me that the lock represented a significant upgrade on what I had in place already (despite not even having seen the original lock at that point - a CES item that looks very well engineered) . For £165 I was going to get the ultimate in security.
Now that I have their (broken) lock in my hand I have checked out the make and model number on line - as you might have already guessed it's a cheap as chips (£16) item. (Versa AP12A). I feel that they misrepresented their product!
Well, things have progressed this morning! Apparently, according to the company, locks made of steel and brass should be considered 'perishable items', (their words) and so I should pay again (albeit with a bit of a discount)
I have politely refused and invited them to come and collect their product asap.
Interestingly when they fitted the (now broken) lock 12 months ago they told me that the lock represented a significant upgrade on what I had in place already (despite not even having seen the original lock at that point - a CES item that looks very well engineered) . For £165 I was going to get the ultimate in security.
Now that I have their (broken) lock in my hand I have checked out the make and model number on line - as you might have already guessed it's a cheap as chips (£16) item. (Versa AP12A). I feel that they misrepresented their product!
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 28th June 13:34
andymadmak said:
Thank you to everyone.
Well, things have progressed this morning! Apparently, according to the company, locks made of steel and brass should be considered 'perishable items', (their words) and so I should pay again (albeit with a bit of a discount)
I bet they didn't state that anywhere when you bought it. Hence you could hardly make an informed decision on whether or not you wanted to secure your house with a 'perishable' item. Well, things have progressed this morning! Apparently, according to the company, locks made of steel and brass should be considered 'perishable items', (their words) and so I should pay again (albeit with a bit of a discount)
andymadmak said:
Interestingly when they fitted the (now broken) lock 12 months ago they told me that the lock represented a significant upgrade on what I had in place already (despite not even having seen the original lock at that point - a CES item that looks very well engineered) . For £165 I was going to get the ultimate in security.
Now that I have their (broken) lock in my hand I have checked out the make and model number on line - as you might have already guessed it's a cheap as chips (£16) item. (Versa AP12A). I feel that they misrepresented their product!
I would add that to the case. But remember if things get serious you'll need facts not 'he said you said' etc. Anything verbal doesn't count. Now that I have their (broken) lock in my hand I have checked out the make and model number on line - as you might have already guessed it's a cheap as chips (£16) item. (Versa AP12A). I feel that they misrepresented their product!
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff