Letters of the month: faulty carpet washer, rusty oven and incorrect prescription

Faulty carpet washer

I purchased a new Vax carpet washer in January 2022. I used the machine three times, very briefly, on our old carpet, then didn’t use it again until June 2024. I had a mark to remove so started the cleaner, and it blew blue smoke, so I quickly turned it off. It was just out of its 2-year warranty. I sent the machine to Techtronic Industries as directed by Vax. I’ve received my faulty machine back today with a statement my machine is out of warranty. I believe this should still be covered by Vax for repair or replacement – I’ve only used it three times. What would you advise me to do now?

- CHRIS KOLLER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

As the retailer you purchased the machine from has now closed, you will have to take your claim for Consumer Guarantee Act (CGA) rights directly to Vax – the manufacturer. Unfortunately, some suppliers and manufacturers don’t appear to be aware of their legal obligations and hide behind expired warranties.

If you’ve looked after your Vax carpet washer as specified in its care manual, then you could expect Vax to repair or replace the carpet washer within a reasonable time or pay damages for the loss in value, compared with the purchase price. This is because the carpet washer has not met the guarantee of acceptable quality under the CGA. We suggest you point this out to Vax in writing. If Vax is still not prepared to make things right, you could try taking your case to the Disputes Tribunal, which would cost you $59

UPDATE

After a proper assessment, Vax replaced the machine.

---

Swamped by a dress

I bought a dress online for $69.95. It arrived, but the size differed significantly from that published on the website. I had bought a small size, which had an advertised chest measurement of 36.8 inches. The chest measurement of the garment was actually 42 inches, so it swamped me. I emailed the online retailer and asked for a refund, saying I would return the garment. To its credit, the retailer communicated promptly. It offered me a choice of one of three refunds – 20%, 30% or 50%, and I could keep the dress. I refused all of these because the dress was fundamentally unwearable. I pointed out that under NZ consumer law, I was entitled to a refund. After much to-ing and fro-ing, I was offered a full refund, but only if I returned the dress to their warehouse in China. This was going to cost over $30 – about half the cost of the dress. I pointed out that the dress had been delivered by NZ Couriers, so why couldn’t I return it to a New Zealand address? To no avail. So, I reluctantly accepted the 50% refund, and I will donate the dress to the local community store. What are my rights in this situation?

- VICKY WALKER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

As you mentioned in your letter, you are entitled to a full refund under the Consumer Guarantees Act – the dress you received was not as the retailer had described it in the promotional material. If you paid for the dress by credit or debit card online, you could have asked your bank for a credit card chargeback. You would have also been within your rights to ask the retailer for a courier bag or ticket to return the garment at no cost to yourself.

---

Unsafe mixer

My wife purchased a milkshake mixer online as a gift for a family member some time ago, and we have not had a very good experience. She purchased the gift after giving the website a quick check. It appeared to be a New Zealand-based website with an Auckland physical address. The order took about 6 weeks to arrive – it had been sent from the USA. On unwrapping the purchase, I immediately noted that it had a US power plug and, on closer inspection, I saw that it was for use with 110V and not 240V power that we use here in NZ. We contacted the supplier and explained we wished to return the device and have a full refund. They offered a partial refund to cover the cost of a 110V to 240V transformer, however we declined, insisting on a refund with return of the item to the Auckland address. The supplier is now asking us to return the item to the US before it processes a refund. It will contribute NZ$20 towards postage (total postage estimated at NZ$53). We feel this is unreasonable. Our next step is to contact our credit card company. However, I want to make sure we are within our rights on this matter. Your advice would be welcome.

- MIKE BUTLER

OUR EXPERTS SAY

We think a credit card chargeback is definitely the sensible next step. It’s illegal to sell an electrical product in New Zealand that isn’t rated for 230V, and it’s also illegal to sell electrical products without a supply lead that’s appropriate for New Zealand. Even though it is located abroad, it is fair to say the supplier is selling these products in New Zealand (as evidenced by the use of a New Zealand-based website, the prices on the website being listed in NZ$ and the provision of a New Zealand physical address). You would be entitled to reject the mixer as unsafe under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

---

Rusty oven

I have a Belling combination microwave, which I purchased 4 years ago for $1,200. It has rapidly developed a patch of rust and corrosion on the metal fold-down door. There’s also evidence of bubbling paint in one area of the door. The item had a 2-year warranty and has been in normal domestic use over the 4 years. We’ve complied with all care and cleaning instructions in the oven’s user manual. The supplier has indicated its hands are tied as the item is out of warranty. It has, however, offered to send me a part to replace the defective part (presumably a door). I have to pay a technician to install the door. The microwave must surely be faulty given its age and utilisation. I have tried to discuss my Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) rights with the supplier, but to no avail. What are my options under the circumstances?

- LAUREN WILLIAMS

OUR EXPERTS SAY

We think you’re being perfectly reasonable to want the appliance repaired at no cost to you. An expensive microwave oven shouldn’t be rusting after less than 4 years of normal use. This wear would not meet the guarantee of acceptable quality under the CGA. We suggest, you approach the retailer you purchased the microwave from, as it’s responsible for ensuring a remedy is provided under the CGA – but it has to be given the opportunity to do so.

---

Incorrect prescription

I got an eye test that was covered by my health insurance company. A couple of weeks later, I took the prescription to another optometrist and chose frames for ordinary glasses and sunglasses. They cost around $600. When I picked up the glasses and tried them on, they were both weak on the left eye. The optometrist said I would have to take up the issue with the testing optometrist as it had made the glasses according to the prescription it had been provided with. Seven weeks after my eyes were tested, I went back to the testing optometrist who said he would only have liability if I’d had the glasses made there and that I should have had the prescription checked when I went to the optometrist I purchased them from. He offered to do another test, but said my eyes could have changed or there could have been an error. There was a significant change in the new prescription, which suggested to me that this optometrist had made an error in testing my eyes initially or had written it down wrong. The optician offered a slight discount on replacing the lens in one pair of glasses but otherwise did not seem willing to resolve the issue. I am wondering if I just have to accept this and pay for replacement myself, or whether the optician has any liability for getting my prescription wrong.

- ALISON BOONE

OUR EXPERTS SAY

If it’s likely your left eyesight changed in the two months between getting the prescription checked and getting the glasses, then you have no rights. If the problem is that the testing optometrist didn’t take reasonable care and skill to check your eyesight or write down the prescription details correctly, then you’d need to get a second opinion to say it’s unlikely your eyesight would have changed significantly in two months. It’s possible the optometrist who sold you the glasses can provide that second opinion.

If the testing optician didn’t take reasonable care and skill, then you have rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. The optician should reimburse you for any reasonable costs you incurred as a result of the incorrect prescription. This would include the cost of the retailing optician providing new replacement lenses for both pairs of glasses.