In a distressing consumer saga, a Grundig washer-dryer has been accused of "eating" approximately £1,000 worth of clothing and bedding, despite being under warranty. The reader, Benji from Peterborough, purchased the appliance new, only to encounter repeated failures that left garments burnt, shrivelled, and beyond repair.
A Cycle of Destruction
Around two years into its three-year warranty, the machine first malfunctioned, ruining a full load of clothes. An engineer diagnosed a faulty thermostat, repaired it under warranty, and declared the appliance safe. Shockingly, the next load suffered the same fate. A second engineer blamed a sticking fascia, causing buttons to press during cycles via vibrations, and again claimed it was fixed after testing.
Not long after, disaster struck a third time. This time, an engineer disassembled the unit and discovered faulty wiring, remarking it was a "miracle" the machine hadn't failed sooner. Benji notes that only this third inspection fully identified the root causes, suggesting earlier issues were avoidable.
Frustrating Pursuit of Compensation
Benji has contacted Grundig over a dozen times, with no manager call-backs as promised and zero compensation offered. Money Blog editor Jimmy Rice intervened, exchanging emails with Grundig's owner, Beko. Beko cited delays due to a merger with Hotpoint and system integration problems, apologising but struggling to locate evidence Benji provided.
After sending photos of the damaged items, Grundig customer services responded by downplaying the issue, describing it as "heavy creasing" that could be rectified through dry cleaning. They offered a £250 goodwill gesture, which Benji rejected as inadequate, countering with a claim for £1,497 to cover £968 in damage costs and a £529 machine refund.
Legal Standoff and Consumer Rights
Beko has rejected the machine refund claim, arguing it's three years old and outside the two-year manufacturer warranty. However, consumer experts highlight that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides an implied warranty of up to six years, making this position unsustainable.
Consumer disputes expert Scott Dixon advises that Grundig has failed to perform with "reasonable care and skill" under Section 49 of the Act. He suggests shifting focus to the retailer, as they are in "breach of contract" for selling a faulty product. Since the purchase was over six months ago, Benji would need to prove inherent faults, but manufacturer confirmation of faults should suffice.
Types of Losses and Next Steps
Dixon outlines two loss categories: direct losses, like the ruined clothing, which are foreseeable and compensable, and indirect losses, such as time spent resolving complaints, often addressed via goodwill gestures. If negotiations fail, taking the retailer to small claims court is an option, with pre-action threats often prompting settlements.
An alternative route is using credit card protection under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which holds card providers jointly liable for breaches on purchases over £100. This case underscores the importance of persistent advocacy and understanding consumer rights when facing corporate delays.
