Streetwise:Â How Beverley got a refund from Currys after a six-month fight over a faulty tumble dryer
Beverly Brodie found herself battling between Currys and Hoover when they refused to replace a faulty tumble dryer despite four abortive attempts to fix it. Â
Beverley, a Purbrook mother- of-two, decided last November it was high time she invested in a conventional dryer rather than her Dri Buddi portable airing kit.
After looking around the Currys Fareham branch, she decided to splash out Â£239 on the latest technology, and plumped for a Hoover sensor condenser dryer, which was so smart it could even be controlled from a mobile phone.
Beverley explained all went well until the end of the following April, when an error code came up on the appliance top panel indicating it had developed a fault.
Although she set the dryer to the correct time cycle, it developed an annoying habit of ignoring the instruction, reverting to the final ten minute count down period '“ and then refused to switch off.
The busy garage secretary promptly reported the appliance had gone on the blink.
As the appliance was still covered by the initial guarantee, she rang Hoover and asked for an engineer callout.
She was concerned it was overheating and a potential fire hazard.
Beverley said: '˜Because I had an error code, the engineer diagnosed a sensor on the front that had gone faulty, so he replaced it.
'˜The clothes got really hot. When I stopped the dryer to check them they were so hot I couldn't touch them.
'˜I was worried it was overheating but he assured me it couldn't catch fire because it would only get up to 85 degrees and it has two thermostats in the front to stop it getting too hot.
'˜Then obviously because of all the nice weather I didn't use it again until near the end of September, when whatever cycle I put it on the drying time would just drop down to 10 minutes and again it refused to switch off.
'˜I had to call him out again on October 1 when he cleared the old codes from the first visit and promised to ring me the following day so I could let him know what it was doing.
'˜The following day he called when I confirmed the timer was still sticking so he arranged to order a new printed circuit board. A few days later he came out and fitted it.'
But if Beverley thought her months of hassle trying to get the appliance fixed was finally over, she was sadly mistaken.
It was clearly a '˜Friday' model, which had developed a mind of its own and the engineer was unable to trace and fix the fault.
She added: '˜I carried on trying to use it but it was still doing exactly the same thing.
'˜The engineer admitted he was a bit baffled so he got another replacement circuit board from his van and put it in, but it still didn't sort it.
'˜He said he'd get in touch with their technical department and get back to me, but when I didn't hear from him I rang the repair people for the fifth time to ask about a replacement. As I wasn't getting any joy I emailed Streetwise for advice.'
A frustrated Beverley told us she started to get heated when she finally got to talk to Currys with her complaint and promptly got the brush-off.
She was told it was all down to Hoover to authorise a replacement. The person she spoke to was adamant that until Hoover agreed to write off the appliance they couldn't authorise a replacement.
But when she got back to Hoover she was promptly sent packing. They explained that as they didn't sell her the appliance it was all down to Currys to get it sorted.
As it happened, they were right about that.
We got onto Currys to point out that Beverly had been treated shabbily. Her statutory rights were being ignored. Small wonder she was annoyed and frustrated.
We emphasised The Consumer Rights Act 2105 insists a customer's rights are with the seller, not the manufacturer.
It's the seller who is compelled by law to deal with the matter, including exchanging faulty goods or issuing a refund.
She'd been inconvenienced and given the run-around for months despite the full weight of the law being on her side.
Beverley had reported a defect with the dryer within six months from the date of purchase.
That legally entitled her to one of three specific options '“ a satisfactory repair, a replacement, or a refund.
Hoover was therefore legally obliged to repair the appliance on the first call-out. Because they'd failed miserably, Currys should have replaced the machine straight away or promptly given the Â£239 back.
We asked the electrical giant to look into the matter and they quickly confirmed a change of heart.
Currys said: '˜We are sorry to hear that Mrs Brodie has experienced issues regarding the repair of her tumble dryer. We have investigated this issue and will be reimbursing the full cost of the machine.
'˜Mrs Brodie has accepted this offer and is happy with the outcome.'
Beverley was delighted that the saga of being driven from pillar to post between Currys and Hoover was finally over.
'˜I had a call from the CEO of Currys, she said, '˜and they've agreed to a full refund in voucher form so I can go and choose a replacement.
'˜I just can't thank you enough for helping me to get it sorted.'