Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

IKEA Kitchen Warranty Issues - IKEA trying to get out using a third party - options?

Options
  • 14-01-2019 5:45pm
    #1
    MuffinsDa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭


    Hi All - your advice on below would be greatly appreciated:

    About 9 year ago we bought a Faktum kitchen from Ikea on the basis that it had a 25 year guarantee.

    It has deteriorated hugely over time, beyond what's expected from normal wear and tear. Ikea has discontinued this like on kitchen since a few years ago (I've heard rumour that it was due to huge quality issues and claims arising from them). So even if wanted to BUY parts for it they are not available anymore.

    We made a warranty claim with Ikea, and now Ikea GB is dealing with it and telling us that in 6 to 8 weeks they'll send an allegedly "third party" crown called Ecomaster to inspect it and see if it's wear and tear or valid warranty claim.

    The problem is a) I don't consider a company paid by Ikea to be "third party" and b) this company has a notorious reputation based on newspaper articles and online reviews.

    I have a feeling that this will eventually end in small claims court, and that they are just wasting time.

    What do you wise people suggest for best course of action? I am inclined to not even allow Ecomaster to inspect it as the outcome is obvious and I do not consider them to be impartial based on the fact that Ikea is paying them and also their reputation. I'm thinking of the following options:

    1. Wait for 6 to 8 weeks for that crowd to come in, write an infactual report, and then start a dispute with them ....
    2. Refuse to recognise them as "independent", and ask Ikea that if they want an independent inspection we can find a neutral provider of that service?
    3. State to them that waiting 6 to 8 weeks for inspecting a kitchen (including a broken fridge hinge making the fridge unusable - yes that's covered by warranty as hinge is part of the door cover) is unreasonable, and tell them to either fix it asap or I'll go to small claims court.

    My understanding is, when something is sold with a 25 year warranty, you would at least expect replacement parts to be available for it for that duration under fitness for purpose expectation, and by virtue of not supplying them Ikea is already in breach of their warranty.

    Thoughts?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    After 9 years your claim may not be accepted in the SCC and any award would take into account that you have had 9 years of use. The fact that they are refusing to honour a 25 warranty may be a contract rather than a consumer issue so you may need to talk to a solicitor. I’m having a similar issue with a window company, I cannot make a claim in SCC because they were fitted 9 years ago so I have to go to Court for breach of contract.

    Refusing an inspection may go against any claim you make, IKEA will argue they were refused permission to inspect the kitchen. I don’t see what you have to gain by refusing this.

    But to be fair, a broken hinge after 9 years of use isn’t a huge surprise, surely that is easy to replace.


  • Options
    #3
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,164 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    Either

    A) Its under €2000, you got 9 yrs, the depreciated value is near nil so even if SCC took it you'd be wasting your time

    Or

    B) Its over €2000 and is not in remit for the SCC ignoring the time passed


    I'd be playing ball with the assessor and hoping for a good outcome amicably.


  • Options
    #4
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,474 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    ED E wrote: »
    Either

    A) Its under €2000, you got 9 yrs, the depreciated value is near nil so even if SCC took it you'd be wasting your time

    Or

    B) Its over €2000 and is not in remit for the SCC ignoring the time passed


    I'd be playing ball with the assessor and hoping for a good outcome amicably.

    +1 on this.
    Also the registrar will endeavour to ensure the matter is resolved between both parties without resorting to a hearing.
    To that end, engagement and reasonable cooperation is both encouraged and expected as part of the SCC process.


  • Options
    #5
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,382 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    The METOD kitchens that replaced FAKTUM are basically the same thing, just different construction/design, I fitted one of each a few years ago and the newer ones are 95% the same and not any different quality wise.

    Nothing unusual in sending a third party company to inspect it, they’re not gonna get the girl from the checkout to do it. Third party just means not Ikea. They’re not going to send someone they’re not paying to inspect your kitchen.


  • Options
    #6
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    Great in theory but in my case the registrar was not bothered to try and resolve it outside the court.
    banie01 wrote: »
    +1 on this.
    Also the registrar will endeavour to ensure the matter is resolved between both parties without resorting to a hearing.
    To that end, engagement and reasonable cooperation is both encouraged and expected as part of the SCC process.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    MuffinsDa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭MuffinsDa


    Good point guys. However I am not sure if you read the article and reviews I linked to in my first post - this company seems to be solely a "special purpose vehicle" for Ikea to get out of warranties.

    I appreciate that I had the kitchen for about 9 years, and a certain wear and tear is expected. However Ikea made a big deal of their 25 year warranty especially in relation to hinges, and having numerous warped surfaces, broken hinges and malfunctioning soft close mechanism doesn't sit well with that. To add injury to insult, Ikea does not supply parts, even if I wanted to pay for them. My bone of contention here is that if you buy something with a 25 year warranty you'd at least hope that parts would be available for it for that duration and then you have some level of support. Providing 25 year warranty and then end-of-lifing it in 3-4 years is clearly a con!


  • Options
    #8
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    The METOD kitchens that replaced FAKTUM are basically the same thing, just different construction/design

    and different sizes/finishes so completely incompatible.

    I cringe every time I see someone posting about the 25 year guarantee.
    MuffinsDa wrote: »
    My bone of contention here is that if you buy something with a 25 year warranty you'd at least hope that parts would be available for it for that duration and then you have some level of support. Providing 25 year warranty and then end-of-lifing it in 3-4 years is clearly a con!

    They don't guarantee the kitchen will last 25 years, they guarantee to cover defects in the "material and workmanship" excluding wear and tear.


  • Options
    #9
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,519 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    MuffinsDa wrote: »
    Providing 25 year warranty and then end-of-lifing it in 3-4 years is clearly a con!

    More likely that they sold it with the 25 year guarantee, but then a history of defects started to emerge and after a while they decided to remove the range. I wouldn’t call that a con, more like normal product management.

    Look, I’d let the 3rd party take a look if that is part of the process. You’ve got nothing to lose. If IKEA find in your favour, great. If they don’t, then you can see about getting an independent assessment.


  • Options
    #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I would imagine that anything other than a complete collapse of the kitchen units may be viewed as 'wear and tear' by a judge or other third party, after a 9 year period of use.

    To be fair to Ikea, I don't think any regularly-used kitchen will last 25 years. I've never seen a 25 year old kitchen in good condition. I live in a Council estate, and I know of one person whose house I was in, that has the kitchen the Council installed originally (it must be there over 30 years) and it's being held together with willpower. If you look at it hard enough it'd fall apart.


    I think the 25 year guarantee would exist to cover things like the units falling off the walls, the worktop or units discolouring, hinges actually snapping/breaking etc.


  • Options
    #11
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Deleted User wrote: »
    To be fair to Ikea, I don't think any regularly-used kitchen will last 25 years. I've never seen a 25 year old kitchen in good condition.

    Ikea set that expectation with the 25 year guarantee BS.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think the 25 year guarantee would exist to cover things like the units falling off the walls, the worktop or units discolouring, hinges actually snapping/breaking etc.

    Most of those things sound like wear & tear rather than manufacturing/fitting defects. I can't think of many manufacturing/fitting defects that would have waited this long to present themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Graham wrote: »
    Ikea set that expectation with the 25 year guarantee BS.



    Most of those things sound like wear & tear rather than manufacturing/fitting defects. I can't think of many manufacturing/fitting defects that would have waited this long to present themselves.


    A falling unit would be workmanship in my opinion. Discolouring would be a quality issue. As would (again; in my opinion) edging peeling, handles breaking, etc.


    I suppose a lot of it is down to interpretation. Either way, although a 25 year guarantee is offered, I think 'reasonable expectation' would say you won't see 25 years out of (probably any) kitchen.


  • Options
    #13
    rock22
    Registered Users Posts: 1,547 ✭✭✭rock22


    Deleted User wrote: »
    .... Either way, although a 25 year guarantee is offered, I think 'reasonable expectation' would say you won't see 25 years out of (probably any) kitchen.

    Where is your evidence for this? My kitchen is well over 25 yrs and is in as new condition. A number of friends and family would also have kitchens over 25 yrs and they would also be in good condition.


  • Options
    #14
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I suppose a lot of it is down to interpretation. Either way, although a 25 year guarantee is offered, I think 'reasonable expectation' would say you won't see 25 years out of (probably any) kitchen.

    Our kitchen is over 40 years old and as good as the day it was fitted.


  • Options
    #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Okay, you may well see 100 years out of a kitchen, but you're generally unlikely to get that far without experiencing issues with various components. Most people will have issues with soft-close breaking, hinges wearing, special-unit doors (like fitted bins, extractor fans etc.) having issues opening or closing the full way, etc.

    Rarely will a kitchen be fitted, and last 40 years without a single issue arising in that time frame.


  • Options
    #16
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    the point is not how long your kitchen lasted but rather

    1. what a reasonable expectation for how long it lasts
    2. what constitutes wear and tear vs 'fault'
    3. What is covered by manufacturer vs the person who fitted.

    EG
    I think the 25 year guarantee would exist to cover things like the units falling off the wall
    is clearly the fitting of the units rather than manufacturer.

    finally what cost do you expect to recover? if its depreciated 95% over say 10 years then your award would be virtually nothing taking the cost to apply to SCC and the cost of a 1/2 day off work.


  • Options
    #17
    my3cents
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭my3cents


    Xterminator wrote: »
    the point is not how long your kitchen lasted but rather

    1. what a reasonable expectation for how long it lasts
    2. what constitutes wear and tear vs 'fault'
    3. What is covered by manufacturer vs the person who fitted.

    EG is clearly the fitting of the units rather than manufacturer.

    finally what cost do you expect to recover? if its depreciated 95% over say 10 years then your award would be virtually nothing taking the cost to apply to SCC and the cost of a 1/2 day off work.

    I can see that side of it but for me the telling point here is that the OP bought this over another kitchen because of the 25 year guarantee.

    The only problem I can see is that to gain any redress the OP would need to pay to take this to court. My argument would be that IKEA are resetting the period of deprecation to 25 years because of their guarantee so at nine years old the kitchen should still have loads of use in it.


Advertisement