Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

[washermanuk]

Would regularly cooking for 14 people on a 110 LPG Rangemaster be overuse?
I have a customer claiming the Sales of Goods act demanding a replacement machine (paid £1700 two years ago). In her defence the machine has had many faults, but Rangemaster extended the warranty by an extra year FOC and all faults had been rectified, even if they did recur later. One of the faults was a hungry mouse chewing through something, a couple of the faults are cosmetic, all of which had been generously covered FOC by Rangemaster despite being under no obligation to do so.

What I don’t want is to be forced to replace the machine (now RRP of £2000) only to get another letter in two years time, because the machine has been misused.
14 people sounds close to commercial catering to me, and she admitted that to the Rangemaster engineer who also advised her on incorrect pan usage.

Any thoughts or advise?

Cheers!

[admin]

Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Hi

Is the 14 people actual family as in parents,sons daughters.

Did they state that they was purchasing for usage of 14 ?.

I doubt that a judge would go fully in there favour if you wasn’t informed of the environment that they was purchasing it for as I take it you would have advised a commercial cooker rather than a rangemaster. If it was ordered to be exchanged then rangemaster would then need to supply as its been upheld in the customers favour and at the end of the day you would then claim off them and as its been ordered against you it should carry on back to your supplier ect.

Bryan

[washermanuk]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Cheers,

I don’t know who the 14 are, but it’s on a big farm so it’s possible they are all either family or workers, but they didn’t state to us that it would be used to cook for 14 people.

Rangemaster are unwilling to help us in this regard as the machine is not beyond repair and all faults have been rectified. Its the frequency of the faults that the customer is complaining about, stating that this proves the machine was inherently faulty at the point of sale.
I want to know if the machine is developing so many faults because of poor quality, or misuse, as that changes everything one way or another.

[admin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Hi

in my opinion if they are using it to cook the workers meals act then it is commercial and not family use. How many children do they have ?. If I was the one who was going to foot the bill.I would have a look on the local electoral register and see how many there are on there for the address. Have they stated its used for 14 ? .
Inherently faulty THEY have to prove at their expense and then get it accepted by the court.IF the court accepts it then the person who you purchased it from would then need to have an action against them by you.
I would gather as much evidence as possible that it was being used outside normal family conditions and overused.It’s now in a world of customers are NO longer loyal and trustworthy but WILL stab you in the back as soon as they have the smallest inkling they can get away with.

And before anyone says i’m tarring everyone with the same brush.. even a lot of the 50 plus are even trying it on with the smaller retailers.Yes there are a few customers who you would think that wouldn’t do anything like it..until the younger daughter / son ect get hold of it then it becomes a bigger problem.

You (the small retailer) are doing this.. even though the manufacturers don’t have any spares available to a 65yr old woman living on here own..dont mention that she eats out every day and only cooks toast on it in the morning.(rant over)

Bryan

Bryan

[Martin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Whether it’s 14 people or 140 people would hardly be deemed as overuse nor effect the manufacturers warranty. Nor would it be reasonable for the owner to have any claim whatsoever against the supplier of the goods. And if they were to make such a claim it would be entirely their responsibility to prove the product was not of merchantable quality from the point of sale or that the subsequent failures were as a result of manufacturing defects or negligence.

You have no case to answer.

[kwatt]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Simple question…

Is cooking for up to 14 people what can be considered “reasonable” use for a domestic cooker?

Answer, no, unless it’s at a few occasions through the year and not constantly.

To cook for 14 on a regular basis it’s commercial use.

K.

[stratfordgirl]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Under Sale of Goods Act, a customer only has a “reasonable time” to reject an article and claim a replacement or refund. “Reasonable time”, is generally considered to be 2 to 4 weeks. Beyond that, and up to six months, they can demand a free of charge repair, unless you can prove the fault was not inherent. After 6 months, as Martin says, the customer would have to prove the fault was inherent, but even then they could only claim the cost of repair, not a replacement.

[Martin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

kwatt wrote:Simple question…
Is cooking for up to 14 people what can be considered “reasonable” use for a domestic cooker?
Answer, no, unless it’s at a few occasions through the year and not constantly.

Oh come now, lets not lose track of the fact we are referring to a Gas Cooker where, apart from the doors, shelves and perhaps a fan motor, barely has any moving parts at all. That it is a large capacity device more than adequate to accomodate a large household of 14 people. No doubt the purchaser had that in mind prior to buying it in the first place. That cooker can knock out cakes, buns and fry-ups all day long in order to feed the 14, morning, noon and night.

You cannot stand up and shout ‘commercial useage’ when clearly it is firmly located in a domestic property. Neither can you discriminate to the potential of the number of persons using that appliance. The idea preposterous from the outset.

Were it to be locate in a house on Weymouth’s seafront then there may be reason to suspect it may be classed as located in a commercial premise. But again such a suggestion would be difficult to prove otherwise unless the purchasers name was (say) ‘Seaview Guesthouse’ or some such….?

Reliability has been an issue in this case and in that regard the owner has been more than adequately served and faults have quickly been rectified. The selling dealer has played his part well in this matter and has no case to answer. A counter-argument citing commercial usage by the dealer would not be an appropriate comment to make at this time, or any time for that matter.

[washermanuk]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Thanks very much everyone.
I’ve just learned that two faults have not currently been rectified, going back to late August, one of which is an overheating oven and the other is door that apparently hasn’t been refitted.
Whether or not the customer has refused further repairs I don’t know, but at no point have Rangemaster said the machine is BER.

As far as I’m concerned, whilst the machine develops faults which are then rectified FOC, then we’re gold, no?

My issue then becomes when the machine runs out of its extended manufacturers warranty and these same faults reappear. Rangemaster wouldn’t then attend to them FOC, neither would we and we could end up with a more difficult SOGA situation.

The point of the 14 people being overuse or not may not be relevent in terms of crying commercial, but surely has some relevence with regards fair wear and tear?

[admin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

You cannot stand up and shout ‘commercial useage’ when clearly it is firmly located in a domestic property. Neither can you discriminate to the potential of the number of persons using that appliance. The idea preposterous from the outset.

Martin. For domestic use it is legally assumed that it is for a single household family.Yes if there is a family of 2 adults and 12 kids there isn’t much a manufacturer can do about it. Where the householder then decides to start cooking the meals ect for the workers of the farm.. It then becomes commercial as meals would be supplied by the employer during working hours.. Not as an entertainment or family get-together.

Are you saying that if you martin replaced a part on her miele washing machine at a cost of £600 and then she started to do all her workers washing and horse blankets and then made a claim against yourself you would just hand over the cash or carry out another free repair on her appliance knowing that this is the way its used..I doubt it vey much. And this is the point.

Bryan

[Martin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

r600a wrote:Are you saying that…….

Read my comments again Bryan if you will. My message is that washermanuk has no case to answer. He has done no wrong, the repair work has been carried out in full every time it has failed. The extended warranty has been honoured even by Rangemaster themselves. Commercial usage has never ever been mentioned or suggested during all this time and work and the cost of repairs readily accepted in that same period.

But yes, I will stand up and say that 14 people using the appliance would not ever qualify for such a ludicrous suggestion, laughable even I might add. It’s the wrong card to play and I repeat for the FOURTH time…he has no case to answer to. The customer has no grounds to complain and would have no recourse against him in any case. Shouting commercial use at this late stage would cloud any third parties judgment of the case as well. Far better he hold fast and stand by his past dealings with that customer and seen thereby by them as being both fair and honest in every respect.

[Martin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

washermanuk wrote:Rangemaster wouldn’t then attend to them FOC, neither would we and we could end up with a more difficult SOGA situation.

The Sale of Goods Act is very specific in many ways and sided very much in the purchasers favour. And I’m not privy to the service history of this appliance. But what I can say is that if this Rangemaster broke down in the first 6 months of its life and several other times subsequently, then citing “not of merchantable quality” could be an issue. But nonetheless it is left to the purchaser to prove that to be the case.

washermanuk wrote:The point of the 14 people being overuse or not may not be relevant in terms of crying commercial, but surely has some relevance with regards fair wear and tear?

Your customer will have great difficulty proving a case against you or Rangemaster for that matter. But I would venture to suggest that you sir would have even greater difficulty proving commercial use against your customer.:wink:

But if at any point you feel your conscience is getting the better of you over the known weaknesses the appliance appears to be suffering from even now, then perhaps you may have to come to some form of compromise with your customer. Or perhaps consult Rangemaster to see if they can help you out in some way?

[washermanuk]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

Its first fault was after about 11 months, and there has been at least one fault per month for the last 11 months. She’s had no end of trouble with it which is why I was going for the misuse angle. We sell loads of Rangemasters of all fuels and have never had this much trouble with one before.

She believes that because the machine has had, in her opinion, 11 faults some of which have been recurring then the machine is inherently faulty. Her ‘proof’ is the amount of faults in such a short space of time.

From her POV, I think she has a point – a £2000 machine shouldn’t break down with such frequency within the first two years.

Rangemaster won’t help beyond what they’ve already done, citing that the machine is repairable and that if we decide to replace the machine then thats up to us.

I didn’t intend to turn it into a commercial debate, more customer misuse, which rangemaster engineers that have attended the appliance have alluded to.

[Martin]

Re: Overuse of a Rangemaster cooker?

washermanuk wrote:I didn’t intend to turn it into a commercial debate, more customer misuse, which rangemaster engineers that have attended the appliance have alluded to.

Clearly then from what you say and from your vast experience of this product this case could be construed perhaps as misuse or over-use from your side of the fence, fair enough. But, as I say, it would be hard to prove or make a point out of it all the while.

washermanuk wrote:From her POV

So, looking at it from her POV: –

We all know that many appliances can turn out to be ‘lemons’ and, by that same token, so can many customers. The proverbial jinxed appliance plays an important role in our game that’s for sure. 11 faults is a lot, that’s true and the short period between those faults does give credence to her case I must admit. So I reckon that being as you have all the while profited from this situation. (i.e profited from the original sale and gained extra income from the subsequent repair recalls) That perhaps now may be a good time to put forth a goodwill gesture to your customer by exchanging her appliance for a brand new one. (Having first secured a similar goodwill deal with Rangemaster in supplying that new unit to you at cost price.)

Looking at it though from the ‘commercial usage angle’ that will indeed be a tough stance and impossible to prove as I say. Unless you can get support direct from the “Rangemaster engineers” in writing, then it’s a blind alley route TBH. But nevertheless worth a punt if you feel compelled.

The other option is do nothing of course. The lesser of all the evils in many ways. As I say, I don’t think you have anything to answer for anyway! But that could possibly come back and bite you? After all said and done “the customer is always right!” besides it is not good PR and your good reputation around town must be maintained and respected. Word could get around?

Your choice ATEOTD…. 😀

[Author]

Posts