The fridge-freezer repair which cost £270 - and didn’t fix the problem

Mike Lilly was outraged after he was charged more than £270 to sort a problem with his fridge-freezer only to discover the fault hadn’t been fixed and his refund request ignored.
Mike Lilly, with the 'freezer' area of the two integrated units that eventually had to be completely replaced
Picture: Malcolm Wells (190220-3928)Mike Lilly, with the 'freezer' area of the two integrated units that eventually had to be completely replaced
Picture: Malcolm Wells (190220-3928)
Mike Lilly, with the 'freezer' area of the two integrated units that eventually had to be completely replaced Picture: Malcolm Wells (190220-3928)

Mike’s problems all began when his trusted Neff fridge freezer went on the blink in mid January.

The fridge was working okay but the freezer was defrosting and struggled to maintain temperature despite the motor running continuously.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The former electrical engineer went online to set about getting the problem sorted, and contacted Marchwood Appliance Repairs Ltd, which had a phone listing in Fareham and was geographically convenient.

He was quoted an initial call out fee of £81 plus parts, and if parts weren’t in stock a return visit to fit them would be a further £48.

Mike said: ‘The engineer arrived and carried out checks. He informed me the control panel printed circuit board was defective and needed replacing. He didn’t have the part and it would need to be ordered.

‘I asked if he was sure the control module was the problem and I was told 99.9 per cent.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

‘I then received an email quotation for the part and labour to fit totalling £191.60 which I paid over the phone by card the same day.

‘A week or so later I was called by the firm to say the part had arrived and an engineer’s visit was arranged for the following day.

‘He fitted the part and told me the freezer was working. I asked how he could be sure and he said that as the fan was running it meant it was okay, but I wasn’t comfortable with his response.

‘The following day the freezer was obviously not working so I phoned them and explained to the receptionist the fault showing on the new display was exactly the same as the one that had been replaced.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

‘She confirmed all they could do was to arrange for the engineer to return and carry out further checks. When I asked if there was anyone in the office I could speak to and answer my technical questions she became very curt and insisted an engineer would be with me later in the day – end of. There was no customer courtesy in my opinion.’

Following the terse exchange and the firm’s refusal to put him through to a manager, Mike reasonably believed he was on a hiding to nothing. This was confirmed when the engineer finally made contact to say he couldn’t do anything until the following week. He suspected the fault had been misdiagnosed and it was a problem with the compressor, not the control panel module, and would have to talk to his manager about it.

The following Monday another engineer phoned to say he was on his way to carry out a further assessment of the problem with the appliance.

After carrying out checks on the freezer, he confirmed it was either a slow refrigerant gas leak or a defective compressor.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He advised Mike the freezer was not economical to repair with only a 60 per cent guarantee of success and advised his best option was to scrap it and buy a new one.

When Mike got onto the firm’s Ringwood head office to give them a piece of his mind he got short shrift. There was no apology or offer of a refund, only a subsequent email quoting £462.50 to replace the compressor and re-gas the system.

At the end of his tether he got onto Streetwise for advice and find out where he stood.

We reluctantly had to tell Mike his experience was depressingly familiar in the repair service sector.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Failure to correctly diagnose faults and fix problems first time around was particularly rife with car, boiler, and domestic appliance servicing.

Surprisingly tradespeople, with the exception of gas engineers, were not required to have any formal qualifications or recognised training.

We explained that contracts for work and materials where the main focus features labour and skill, there’s a legal and contractual obligation for traders to be sufficiently knowledgeable to diagnose and repair faulty products promptly, and at a reasonable cost.

If the repair is unsuccessful people are entitled by the Consumer rights Act 2015 to insist the job is redone at no extra cost, and not compelled to give into extortionate demands for more money.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Our first port of call was Marchwood’s terms and condition of sale. They stipulated that any subsequent fault detected after their engineer’s first attendance to fix an appliance attracted additional charges.

But in our view contractual terms that were used to justify unreasonable costs to correct diagnostic mistakes, fit replacement parts which weren’t in stock or fix the fault, amounted to money for old rope. They’re unfair and likely to fall foul to the same consumer protection legislation.

Our online customer review check threw up some uncomfortable reading and revealed the firm also traded as a separate company, Local Appliance Repairs Ltd.

Both came under relentless fire from Trustpilot where more than 20 reviews resulted in a satisfaction score of just 1.6 out of 10.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

When Streetwise attempted to intervene in Mike’s complaint we channelled it through the firm’s only other contact platform [email protected] and company director Richard Feeney.

We wanted to know why the refrigeration engineer called out to diagnose the fault with Mike’s appliance hadn’t first eliminated the possibility of the slow gas leak. It was such a common and easily-diagnosed fault. 

To an experienced refrigeration engineer, the continuous operation of the compressor is the very first obvious clue to the leak of refrigerant. It invariably results in the appliance being condemned as a write off. Changing parts was an inappropriate remedy.

We tried on multiple occasions to get a reply to our request for an explanation and comment, but the company declined to respond. We were left down a blind alley.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mike understandably thought he’d lost out, and would have to write off his £270 to bitter experience.

But by a stroke of luck, he told us he’d used his credit card to pay the company. We advised him he was entitled to make a claim on his bank for the breach of contract and a refund of almost £200 under the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

Mike reflected on our advice. ‘Unless I’d got in touch with you,‘ he said, ‘the matter would have just gone dead. Your help was much appreciated.’