Replaced oven element failed again aftert 10 months - fair or not?

[Lobster]

The element in our oven (about 10 years old) failed last April;
something I've never experienced before. I replaced it with an original
part obtained from an online spares supplier, for about 30 quid delivered.

Now the new one has just failed too; I plan to contact the supplier
tomorrow for a whinge, but just wondered where people reckon I stand
here. The T&Cs state the following:

"If there is a fault with your product or other defect with your order
within 12 months of delivery we will normally offer a replacement or
repair." [...] "This guarantee does not cover faults caused by accident,
neglect, misuse or normal wear and tear."[...] "The guarantee period for
consumable items (eg. batteries, camera films, ink cartridges, etc) is
three months from date of delivery. Spares that must be fitted
internally are also guaranteed for three months, provided they have been
fitted by a suitably qualified and competent person."

I presume that an oven element will come under the "three months"
category so am anticipating they'll give me short shrift.

Is 10 months, or 3 months, a reasonable life span? Personally I think
not but would be interested in what others reckon, and how far I should
push this?

--
David

[Tim+]

It depends on how sure you are that you fitted it properly. I know that
when I last replaced our fan oven element,I had to take care that the coils
were properly spaced apart to prevent a local hotspot.

Tim

[ARW]

What defines a "suitably qualified and competent person" to fit an oven
element?

It's outside the scope of part P. It's not rocket science and you should lay
the SOGA on them if they do not swap the element for free.

--
Adam

[Ericp]

It is pitiful, you should have had at least a couple of years. It was
probably a Chinese clone in which case it was good quality to even
exceed the derisory guarantee time.

[Rod Speed]

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CCXPs.11741$fs3....@fx25.fr7...

Nope.

> Personally I think not but would be interested in what others reckon, and
> how far I should push this?

I got that situation myself. The first time the oven element
failed, it had lasted at least 20 years. The replacement didn't
last even a year. The operation I bought the replacement
from just shrugged when I told him that and since it wasn't
that expensive, I didn't bother to make an issue of it.

The replacement, from the same operation, has lasted at least
10 years now.

I cant see how they can get away with claiming only 3 months
with spares, or the other line about a suitably qualified and
competent person either with something that just plug in like
most oven elements do. Bet its just a try on that has no legal
basis what so ever, but then don't know as much about your
consumer law as I do about my own.

[Rod Speed]

"Tim+" <timdow...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:570582074381714686.855326timdow...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

No problem with my oven element that I have replaced 3 times now
over 40 years, it’s a solid metal element with an internal heater with
a ceramic filler/insulator which just plugs in to the ceramic insulated
socket with very substantial metal conductors and a couple of metal
guides as well. Not even possible to get it wrong unless you do
something really stupid and try using a pair of pliers on the element
and squash it using the pliers or something like that.

[harry]

On Feb 5, 4:39 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Lobster" <davidlobsterpot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

So you have a more than thirty one year old oven Wodders?

[harry]

They can fail early if the /wire/terminals are not cleaned up properly
when the new element is installed. They are often badly corroded.
If they are crimp connections, the crimps often relax over the years
as well as corroding and should be replaced along with the element.
They are special heat resisting crimps, ordinary ones won't do.

So your element may have failed early for that reason.

[Mike Tomlinson]

>On Feb 5, 4:39�am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> but then don't know as much

Well, that's true.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[Lobster]

On 05/02/2013 07:27, harry wrote:
> On Feb 4, 11:37 pm, Lobster<davidlobsterpot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Is 10 months, or 3 months, a reasonable life span? Personally I think
>> >not but would be interested in what others reckon, and how far I should
>> >push this?

> They can fail early if the /wire/terminals are not cleaned up properly
> when the new element is installed. They are often badly corroded.
> If they are crimp connections, the crimps often relax over the years
> as well as corroding and should be replaced along with the element.
> They are special heat resisting crimps, ordinary ones won't do.
>
> So your element may have failed early for that reason.

Just had a look, and the (crimp) connectors are in perfectly OK
condition; and a very tight fit.

The element itself looks in almost 'out-of-the-box' condition still; and
certainly no signs of the loops touching each other causing hotspots etc.

I get how I may be vulnerable to the supplier bleating about a d-i-y
installation though. Will see...

--
David

[Brian Gaff]

Well the tack I'd take is one where you want to inform them of this failure
in case its a duff batch, they may well be quite grateful and give you
another or at least a discount. It does sound a bit short considering many
ovens work for years without losing an element. If its one of two in an oven
and the other one is still the old one all the better for your case.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CCXPs.11741$fs3....@fx25.fr7...

[Rod Speed]

"harry" <harry...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c61653cc-0c79-472a...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

40, actually, this year.

[Rod Speed]

"harry" <harry...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:fb3893bc-45de-4173...@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 4, 11:37 pm, Lobster <davidlobsterpot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The element in our oven (about 10 years old) failed last April;
>> something I've never experienced before. I replaced it with an original
>> part obtained from an online spares supplier, for about 30 quid
>> delivered.
>>
>> Now the new one has just failed too; I plan to contact the supplier
>> tomorrow for a whinge, but just wondered where people reckon I stand
>> here. The T&Cs state the following:
>>
>> "If there is a fault with your product or other defect with your order
>> within 12 months of delivery we will normally offer a replacement or
>> repair." [...] "This guarantee does not cover faults caused by accident,
>> neglect, misuse or normal wear and tear."[...] "The guarantee period for
>> consumable items (eg. batteries, camera films, ink cartridges, etc) is
>> three months from date of delivery. Spares that must be fitted
>> internally are also guaranteed for three months, provided they have been
>> fitted by a suitably qualified and competent person."
>>
>> I presume that an oven element will come under the "three months"
>> category so am anticipating they'll give me short shrift.
>>
>> Is 10 months, or 3 months, a reasonable life span? Personally I think
>> not but would be interested in what others reckon, and how far I should
>> push this?

> They can fail early if the /wire/terminals are not cleaned up properly
> when the new element is installed. They are often badly corroded.

None of mine were corroded at all.

> If they are crimp connections,

None of mine are.

> the crimps often relax over the years as well as corroding
> and should be replaced along with the element.

That's not going to see the element fail in 9 months.

> They are special heat resisting crimps, ordinary ones won't do.

> So your element may have failed early for that reason.

Bullshit.

[Tim+]

Definitely sounds like a duff one then. Good luck.

Tim

[Andy Champ]

On 05/02/2013 08:57, Brian Gaff wrote:
> It does sound a bit short considering many
> ovens work for years without losing an element.

Ours is something like 15 years old.

I feel safe in mentioning this as it is being replaced next week anyway
- kitchen refurb.

Andy

[meow...@care2.com]

The law gives you 1-6yrs guarantee for most things. I don't see any reason for this to be exempt.

At £30 its almost worth commencing a small claims proceeding, the odds are they'll cave immediately and refund. Even talking to a solicitor would cost them more than that.


NT

[Mark]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:58:04 -0800 (PST), meow...@care2.com wrote:

>On Monday, February 4, 2013 11:37:08 PM UTC, Lobster wrote:
>
>> The element in our oven (about 10 years old) failed last April;
>> something I've never experienced before. I replaced it with an original
>> part obtained from an online spares supplier, for about 30 quid delivered.
>> Now the new one has just failed too; I plan to contact the supplier
>> tomorrow for a whinge, but just wondered where people reckon I stand
>> here. The T&Cs state the following:
>> "If there is a fault with your product or other defect with your order
>> within 12 months of delivery we will normally offer a replacement or
>> repair." [...] "This guarantee does not cover faults caused by accident,
>> neglect, misuse or normal wear and tear."[...] "The guarantee period for
>> consumable items (eg. batteries, camera films, ink cartridges, etc) is
>> three months from date of delivery. Spares that must be fitted
>> internally are also guaranteed for three months, provided they have been
>> fitted by a suitably qualified and competent person."
>> I presume that an oven element will come under the "three months"
>> category so am anticipating they'll give me short shrift.
>> Is 10 months, or 3 months, a reasonable life span? Personally I think
>> not but would be interested in what others reckon, and how far I should
>> push this?
>
>The law gives you 1-6yrs guarantee for most things. I don't see any reason for
>this to be exempt.

It isn't.

>At �30 its almost worth commencing a small claims proceeding, the odds are
>they'll cave immediately and refund. Even talking to a solicitor would cost
>them more than that.

Have you asked them yet? The small claims procedure is a last resort
and they may cave in before it comes to this.

The main difficultly I see is that, in the unlikely event that it does
actually come to court, the onus would be on you to prove that it had
an inherent defect at the time of purchase. Even if this is the case
it may be difficult (or at least uneconomic) to prove.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[Lobster]

On 05/02/2013 00:14, Ericp wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:37:08 +0000, Lobster
> <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The element in our oven (about 10 years old) failed last April;
>> something I've never experienced before. I replaced it with an original
>> part obtained from an online spares supplier, for about 30 quid delivered.
>>
>> Now the new one has just failed too; I plan to contact the supplier
>> tomorrow for a whinge, but just wondered where people reckon I stand
>> here. The T&Cs state the following:

[...]

>> Is 10 months, or 3 months, a reasonable life span? Personally I think
>> not but would be interested in what others reckon, and how far I should
>> push this?
>
> It is pitiful, you should have had at least a couple of years. It was
> probably a Chinese clone in which case it was good quality to even
> exceed the derisory guarantee time.

No, it was actually an original Electrolux; could have had the cheapo
job from the same supplier for about half the price IIRC.

Anyway - just to report back: I contacted the supplier about it
yesterday and they immediately held up their hands and shipped me a
replacement FOC without quibble, which has just arrived 18 hrs later on
next-day delivery. Along with a free pen!

So an unreserved recommendation goes out to www.espares.co.uk for
excellent service. Thanks to all here for the helpful advice.

--
David

[meow...@care2.com]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:23:37 AM UTC, Mark wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:58:04 -0800 (PST), meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >On Monday, February 4, 2013 11:37:08 PM UTC, Lobster wrote:

> >The law gives you 1-6yrs guarantee for most things. I don't see any reason for
> >this to be exempt.

> It isn't.

> >At �30 its almost worth commencing a small claims proceeding, the odds are

> >they'll cave immediately and refund. Even talking to a solicitor would cost
> >them more than that.

> Have you asked them yet? The small claims procedure is a last resort
> and they may cave in before it comes to this.

I thought the OP had, perhaps not

> The main difficultly I see is that, in the unlikely event that it does
> actually come to court, the onus would be on you to prove that it had
> an inherent defect at the time of purchase. Even if this is the case
> it may be difficult (or at least uneconomic) to prove.

Its unlikely to get to court because it makes zero economic sense for the seller. If it does, the fact that its failed in normal use is evidence of it being faulty on day one. In practice small claims tend to side more with the consumer.


NT

[Mark]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 06:07:57 -0800 (PST), meow...@care2.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:23:37 AM UTC, Mark wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:58:04 -0800 (PST), meow...@care2.com wrote:
>> >On Monday, February 4, 2013 11:37:08 PM UTC, Lobster wrote:
>
>> >The law gives you 1-6yrs guarantee for most things. I don't see any reason for
>> >this to be exempt.
>
>> It isn't.
>

>> >At �30 its almost worth commencing a small claims proceeding, the odds are

>> >they'll cave immediately and refund. Even talking to a solicitor would cost
>> >them more than that.
>
>> Have you asked them yet? The small claims procedure is a last resort
>> and they may cave in before it comes to this.
>
>I thought the OP had, perhaps not
>
>> The main difficultly I see is that, in the unlikely event that it does
>> actually come to court, the onus would be on you to prove that it had
>> an inherent defect at the time of purchase. Even if this is the case
>> it may be difficult (or at least uneconomic) to prove.
>
>Its unlikely to get to court because it makes zero economic sense for the seller

>If it does, the fact that its failed in normal use is evidence of it being faulty
>on day one.

I would agree. However, if it went to court, it would be up to the OP
to prove the point. If sufficient numbers of consumers do start using
the courts then it may make some cases worth defending.

>In practice small claims tend to side more with the consumer.

I suspect only because a significant number of cases go uncontested.

[Bob Eager]

They've always been very good for me too.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:31:26 +0000, Lobster

<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>So an unreserved recommendation goes out to www.espares.co.uk for
>excellent service.

Yes, they are bloody good.

[Rod Speed]

"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
news:2lb4h8tntml2bl3qr...@4ax.com...

Nope, not with an oven element that should last a hell of a lot longer than
that
that's just a simple plug in element which can't be damaged just by plugging
it in.

[Rod Speed]

"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message

news:qsp4h81mhe2qq2nck...@4ax.com...

And that's easy to do when an oven element should
last MUCH longer than that and its can't be installed
wrong with a plug in element.

> If sufficient numbers of consumers do start using the
> courts then it may make some cases worth defending.

Not in that case where there is no defence available.

>>In practice small claims tend to side more with the consumer.
>
> I suspect only because a significant number of cases go uncontested.

Nope, even when contested.

[ARW]

Result. And it is always worth naming the good ones.

--
Adam

[Mark]

True but irrelevant. It is still up to the consumer to prove that the
item was defective at the time of purchase.

>> If sufficient numbers of consumers do start using the
>> courts then it may make some cases worth defending.
>
>Not in that case where there is no defence available.

There is always the option to defend.

>>>In practice small claims tend to side more with the consumer.
>>
>> I suspect only because a significant number of cases go uncontested.
>
>Nope, even when contested.

Evidence?

[meow...@care2.com]

More to do with presumptions about expertise I think


NT

[bert]

In message <LWsQs.716$9Q5...@fx01.fr7>, Lobster
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> writes

I've sued e-spares in the past. Not always the cheapest but always worth
a look when after spares.
--
bert

[Rod Speed]

"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message

news:cnr6h8dqvqhoq9cj7...@4ax.com...

Nope.

> It is still up to the consumer to prove that the
> item was defective at the time of purchase.

That's just plain wrong when it fails very quickly in use.

>>> If sufficient numbers of consumers do start using the
>>> courts then it may make some cases worth defending.

>> Not in that case where there is no defence available.

> There is always the option to defend.

But no DEFENCE is available to do that with.

>>>> In practice small claims tend to side more with the consumer.

>>> I suspect only because a significant number of cases go uncontested.

>> Nope, even when contested.

> Evidence?

Go and watch some sometime.

[Lobster]

On 07/02/2013 14:51, bert wrote:
> In message <LWsQs.716$9Q5...@fx01.fr7>, Lobster

>> So an unreserved recommendation goes out to www.espares.co.uk for
>> excellent service. Thanks to all here for the helpful advice.
>>
> I've sued e-spares in the past. Not always the cheapest but always worth
> a look when after spares.

So did you win?

(Or did you actually just "use" them? :) )

--
David

[bert]

In message <WuTQs.3599$DQ4...@fx27.fr7>, Lobster
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> writes

Oops
--
bert