Letters of the month: Faulty TV, noisy heat pump, and water-damaged iPhone

Replace or refund?

I bought a Russell Hobbs SatisFry air fryer 14 months ago, but it has stopped working. I returned to the store and found the model was no longer available. The store’s happy for me to select a different air fryer and pay any difference in price. If I don’t see one I want, am I entitled to a refund or is the store fulfilling its obligations by offering me a replacement to the value of what I purchased?

- A MEMBER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

If you don’t want any of the models the store has in stock, you’d be entitled to a refund. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA), retailers of faulty goods have three options: they can repair the goods, replace them with “goods of identical type” or refund the purchase price. As the first two options aren’t possible here, the only remedy available is a refund. The option the retailer has offered you (replacement with a different model) isn’t really a replacement at all so much as a store credit. A refund under the CGA must be a cash refund of the actual purchase price. You could point this out to the retailer and ask for a refund.

UPDATE

On returning to the store, our member was offered a full refund.

Faulty TV

We bought a 55-inch LG TV from a stereo and sound equipment retailer in April 2024 for $2,495. We have had various issues with the TV since it was installed but the major one has been vertical white lines on the screen. This has occurred 11 times over around 5 weeks. The issue has been assessed by the retailer a few times already and it has been unable to fix it. We would like to ask for a full refund – what are our rights in this situation?

- DAVE GOODALL

OUR EXPERTS SAY

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, you can reject the TV if it’s faulty and ask for a full refund as it does not meet the acceptable quality guarantee of the act. If the TV is no longer under warranty, the retailer is obliged to sort this out. UPDATE: Our members were reimbursed in full.

Installation requirements not met

I had a fireplace installed by a licensed gasfitter and plumber. Two years later, the manufacturer contacted me after viewing a video made by a technician who’d serviced my fireplace, noting that no supportive base had been installed. The base is a requirement in the manufacturer’s installation manual and under the gas installation code. Without a supportive base the underside of the fire can bow inwards slightly, affecting the fan and increasing noise and vibration. I contacted the original gas-fitting company, which acknowledged its mistake and said it would get back to me with a time to fix the issue – I haven’t heard back. A new fan installed under warranty (by my preferred technician) improved the noise considerably, so I didn’t press the issue with the base. Four years since installation the noise is now recurring intermittently. This far down the track is the gasfitter obliged to bring its installation up to standard?

- A MEMBER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

Despite 4 years having passed, we don’t think there’s any reason why the gasfitter shouldn’t be expected to remedy its failure to correctly install the appliance as required by the manufacturer’s specifications and the gas installation standard. The delay will have caused no added difficulty with the work required to be done, and you informed the gasfitter 2 years ago of the problem, so any delay since then is as much its responsibility as yours. The installation has not been carried out with reasonable care and skill, as required under the Consumer Guarantees Act, and you have every right to ask the installer to rectify the problem.

Unfit saddle

I paid for the skills of a saddle fitter in February 2024. I asked him if he thought a secondhand saddle I wanted to purchase fitted my horse. He told me it didn’t. He then sold me a new saddle from himself, which he said fitted my horse and was suitable for the riding I did. It cost $5,295. Over time, it became apparent to me that the new saddle didn’t fit my horse and was causing muscle damage. In August last year, I contacted the fitter and asked his opinion as to what was happening. I sent him photos. He said he would be down in a couple of weeks to make some adjustments, but I didn’t hear anything back from him. In September I asked a different saddle fitter his opinion on the two saddles. He said the new saddle never would have fitted my horse as it was too wide and tipping, which was causing the muscle damage and discomfort to my horse. The secondhand saddle, in his opinion, was a good fit. I’ve been sold a product that’s not fit for purpose. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) am I entitled to my money back? - FIONA McCABE

OUR EXPERTS SAY

It sounds like the saddle fitter misled you in order to make a sale, and it appears you have been sold a saddle that’s not fit for the purpose for which it was sold. If that’s the case, then you’re entitled to a remedy under the CGA. The only appropriate remedy in the circumstances would be a refund of the purchase price of $5,295. It may pay to get another opinion if that’s possible, to support the opinion you received in September. If the saddle fitter refuses to provide a remedy, then you could make a claim to the Disputes Tribunal.

UPDATE

Fiona received a full refund.

Restocking fee

I have just been to a computer retailer to return an incorrectly supplied computer part. Dealing with the returns team was a bit off, to be honest, and there was mention of a restock fee because I had opened the packaging on the item I was returning. Well of course – that’s how I found out the wrong part had been supplied to me! I got things sorted and didn’t pay a restock fee. My question is how lawful is charging a restock fee?

- STEVE-TIPENE CALLAGHER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

It’s not lawful to charge a restocking fee in this situation, because under the Consumer Guarantees Act, you’re entitled to return incorrectly supplied goods for either a replacement or a full refund of the purchase price. If a retailer allows the return of goods when it’s not obliged to do so (following a change of mind by the purchaser, for example), it may charge a restocking fee as a condition of allowing the return.

Noisy, cold heat pump

In April 2022, I had a Panasonic 12.5kw ducted heat pump system installed in my home, which I believed would keep it warm during the winters. I was assured, before installation, that loudness would not be a problem. What I have is an incredibly loud system disturbing me and my neighbours. It keeps the house warm in the day, but then does this defrost cycle throughout the night, creating a cold draft through the house when you need the system most. I have asked the installer for a solution multiple times; however, the installer has responded, “That is how the system works”. Either the system is defective, has not been installed properly or I was not given accurate information before it was sold to me. I would like a refund – what are my options?

- A MEMBER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

We’d suggest you get an opinion from Panasonic, and, if necessary, a second opinion from another heat pump installer to say that the system is not operating as advertised. Keep a record of decibel readings. Once you get those reports, you can reject the system and ask for a full refund under the Consumer Guarantees Act. If the installer does not agree, you would have to take your claim to the Disputes Tribunal; this will cost you $234, as your claim is between $5,000 and $30,000.

UPDATE

The unit was eventually replaced by the installer.

Brushed off

I purchased an Oral B electric toothbrush and experienced an intermittent fault with the product. I returned the toothbrush to the retailer and requested a refund. I was offered a store credit for the value of the item – I declined this and requested a refund into my account. The manager told me he wanted to test the product overnight before a refund would be provided. He rang me the next morning to inform me that I had to go to the manufacturer’s website to apply for a refund. I questioned him on this because the transaction was with the retailer and not the manufacturer. He told me this is what I must do and to return to the store to collect the item and receipt. Is this the usual process for a refund?

- A MEMBER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

As the retailer has clearly acknowledged the item is faulty, the onus is on it (and not the manufacturer) to provide a refund. The Consumer Guarantees Act is unequivocal that the retailer is responsible for providing a remedy for faulty goods, that a refund must be a cash refund of the purchase price and (specifically) that a store credit is not a refund. So, what you’ve experienced isn’t the usual process for a refund. We’d suggest you point this out to the manager and ask for a refund.

Water-damaged mobile

I bought a refurbished iPhone 12 Pro Max and was very happy with the quality and appearance of the phone. Everything worked fine, until I went for a walk and got caught in the rain 4 days later. Once I got home, my phone suddenly stopped working and appeared to be water damaged. I took the phone back to the store where they opened it up and, sure enough, there were water droplets in the phone itself. The screen needed replacing and it’s possible there could be other damage to critical components of the phone, such as the battery. My purchase included a warranty. However, the warranty excludes water damage, so that means I will have to pay for the repair of the phone and screen replacement. Friends and family have advised the phone shouldn’t be so damaged after only being in the rain for a brief period. Since I bought the phone secondhand, I understand there’s general wear and tear of the phone to be expected – but am I entitled to suggest that the product sold to me was unfit for purpose as it lacked basic durability?

- LAUREN COLEMAN

OUR EXPERTS SAY

If the phone was damaged in conditions in which it would be normal to expect it to be safe, then it isn’t fit for purpose. An iPhone 12 Pro Max shouldn’t be damaged by a brief exposure to rain or even by being dropped momentarily in a puddle. The phone has an IP68 ingress protection rating. That means it is designed to cope with being completely submerged in water (Apple claims the phone can be submerged to a maximum depth of 6 metres for up to 30 minutes). While that resistance can decrease over time, the phone simply should not be damaged by being briefly exposed to rain. In our view, if it is damaged in this way, it is not fit for purpose and therefore fails to reach the standards demanded by the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA). Note that, while sellers can limit their warranty cover to exclude water damage, they cannot limit the application of the CGA. The seller of this phone says this on its website: “All parts and products are fully functional and tested”. If the water resistance of the phone you bought was compromised, it should have said so. The seller should repair the phone at no cost to you under the CGA (or replace the phone or refund your money). We suggest you point this out to them.

UPDATE

Despite pointing out her rights, Lauren was denied a refund or replacement phone and had to pay for repairs.