Ann McLachlan and her faulty hearing aid.
The $5300 hearing aids that broke down.
Just over two years after Ann McLachlan bought her $5300 hearing aids, they became faulty. Ann took them back to Hearing Advantage in Fendalton, Christchurch, where she’d bought them. The company said the aids were no longer covered by the manufacturer’s warranty – which only lasts two years – and estimated it would cost around $100 to repair them.
But when the hearing aids returned from repair, the bill was $368. Ann was staggered costly repairs were needed so soon out of the warranty period. She pointed out that the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) requires goods to have a reasonable life. But staff said the repair costs were her responsibility. Ann paid up. She has mild to moderate hearing loss and the hearing aids are vital for her job – she works in a call centre.
Ann got in touch with us to find out what her rights were. Our consumer adviser Maggie Edwards’ view was that Ann was right to raise the CGA as an issue. “The CGA says when you buy goods for personal or domestic use they must be of reasonable quality, fit for purpose and have a reasonable lifespan. Generally, it’s the retailer’s responsibility to ensure that any minor defects are fixed during that lifespan,” Maggie says. UK consumer magazine Which? estimates the reasonable lifespan of a hearing aid to be five years.
So Ann wrote to Hearing Advantage, asking it to honour its obligations under the Act. Managing director Lloyd Mander agreed hearing aids should last five years but said “routine repairs” may be required during that time. Mr Mander said the manufacturer, Unitron, believed the most likely cause of the problem with Ann’s aids was moisture damage from “humidity around the ear”.
After discussions with Unitron, Hearing Advantage agreed to refund Ann $268 of the $368 she’d paid. It acknowledged the “significant (though unintentional) error” made by staff in estimating the cost of repairs. The company also sent Ann a drying kit to store her hearing aids and two packets of batteries.
After we contacted the company, it refunded the remaining $100 as a gesture of good faith “not due to any obligation under the CGA”. It told us some hearing aids would require repair within their lifespan and it was generally accepted within the industry that it was the customer’s responsibility to pay for repairs out of warranty. The company said its policy was “no different from every other clinic”.
Based on legal advice, and industry practice, the company said that due to the nature of hearing aids the CGA would not apply out of warranty. We take a different view.
More from consumer.org.nz
- Consumer Guarantees Act - our guide to your rights
Member Comments
Got a question or comment on this topic? Share your views and experiences with other Consumer members...
To add a comment you need to be a member of consumer.org.nz. Login or Join.
Read what our members have to say close
To save money on essentials and make buying decisions easy, you can't go past Consumer. We're proud to have over 65,000 members all enjoying our independent information online or in Consumer magazine.
Here's what some of them say...
"Just wanted to let you know that I find your site excellent! Easy to find my way around, everything at my fingertips - just a click away.
I only took out a 3 month membership as I wasn't sure but it is actually really easy to use and if I want it on paper I can print the
reports. Thanks again".
Denise Watkinson - Waitakere
"My mother (74) got a renewal letter from her insurance company for her car insurance, wanting $570. After reading
your article on car insurance, I contacted one of the companies you recommended, who quoted her $318 for the same
level of cover. I just wanted to stay thank you very much for your article, as it has saved my mother a substantial amount of money".
Adrian Lane - Kapiti Coast
"I've been a member to the magazine since 1997 and enjoy reading it a lot. I've found lots of helpful information on different issues...
Thank you for being so helpful".
Peter Kovalenko - Porirua
"I have been a member of the Consumer NZ for 20 or more years and have enjoyed much reliable advice.
I turn to their tests before making significant purchases".
Lyndal Print – Auckland
Join Consumer now and make your decisions easy on a huge range of products and services
- Over 500 reports, plus interactive tools and calculators
- Independent advice from NZ's trusted source of information
- Join over 65,000 members who help us get all NZers a fairer deal
from just $28
I went to the Hearing Clinic at the University of Auckland Glen Innes campus and as they have no affiliation to any particular brand of hearing aid I was offered a range. The staff there were great and well qualified.
Very good question. When my mild to moderate hearing loss was first diagnosed at the age of 20, I was referred to the ear-nose and throat specialist by my GP for a further assessment(a long time ago).
When I enquired about the free hearing aid trial the GP had told me about, the specialist said "you don't need a hearing aid!"
I persisted, and got a referral to the audiologist, and to cut a long story short... after fitting the hearing aid, he flipped the page on his clipboard, walked across the carpet, turned the door handle to leave the room for a moment. I sat there gobsmacked - I heard the crackle of the clipboard page being turned, I heard his foot steps on the carpet, I heard the door handle turn! It felt as tho someone had taken the pillows away from my ears - it was an amazing experience...
And I learnt that those who are not hearing impaired should NEVER underestimate the potential benefits of hearing aids for even a "mild" hearing loss.
A point I wish to make is that, in my experience, the 'free trial' does not include the cost of the ear molds, which cost about, what, $50 these days?
My experience has also been that it may be important to try out several different brands to find the best for your unique hearing-loss profile. In my case, the last time I replaced my aids, the first aid trialled produced a great deal of 'white noise' that interferred with my hearing (I'm a peculier case who hears high and low frequencies well, but can't hear the mid-range speech frequencies). When I pointed this noise out to the audiologist he researched several brands to find one with a low internal noise rating. So I trialed them, and got them.
So, moral of the story is, don't be shy about asking to trial a different one to that which is first offered, because you may find another brand works better for you.
Many years ago, when I first got hearing aids, the audiologist advised this: at night time, when you take your hearing aids out before sleep, open the battery door and put them in the hot water cupboard in an open container to keep them safe, and dry out any accumulated moisture from the daytime usage. I have done this for many years, without outlaying dollars for a fancy drying contraption. At my last visit, he gave me a plastic jar with a couple of silica gel pads to use when I travel. Go on, try it out.
Faced with the possibility of buying hearing aids retailing at $6.000.oo before the Governemtn subsidy I am at a loss to figure why they should so astronomically expensive. Half the price of a new small car or three return trips to the UK seems a better bargain by far. How are the costs arrived at or is it because as soon as the word 'medical' appears infront of any product the prices seem to escalate absurdly. I appreciate the miniturisation involved but they are also mass produced by the million and are effectively rendered unaffordable to many.
John Marcon
I don't believe that the way in which Anne's problem was dealt with here necessarily helps anyone. I can understand why a member would come to Consumer and seek advice. The outcome is that Anne's hearing aids have been repaired, albeit, it seems, reluctantly. Winner, Anne, and it didn't cost you anything. But consumers would be much better helped if we all paid the fee and put up with the aggravation of going to the Disputes Tribunal on big issues such as this. I can advise from personal experience that (a) the Disputes Tribunal is not reluctant to enforce the CGA. This, in turn, makes retailers rather more sensitive when dealing with issues such as this; and (b) you can probably tell when you strike a retailer who has had a hiding at the Disputes Tribunal. You can threaten to go to Consumer and Fair Go without getting a response, but a letter advising that you are off the Disputes Tribunal inevitably results, in my experience, in instant action. Generally the compaany manager gets involved if it is a big company, rather than the minion at the store. Consumer would help its members more by doing some hand-holding, if necessary, through the Disputes Tribunal and then reporting on a judicial decision rather than concluding with "we disagree."
I also have a problem with moisture around the ear getting into my aid. They have been back to the manufacturer for servicing a couple of times under the service contract. My provider has supplied me with covers to keep out the moisture, but these are expensive considering what they are, but they do the job. My audiologist told me once the aids had design flaw which failed to keep out moisture but this has been remedied in later models. I would like to see a survey on hearing aids - I found it rather daunting when I was first asked to select a hearindg aid when I knew nothing about them.
I have hearing aids of a reputable brand and they cost NZ$1500 less in the UK than they do here. With that being the case I would think a five year guarantee is well covered in the importer's and reseller's margins.