So the latest situation is as follows: Their head office team made contact with me at the start of the week and I passed them a copy of the engineers report that we'd already provided. I explained our position (as if the email left any doubt ) and what we were looking for. As expected, at first they tried the old "out of warranty" line and mentioned that the manufacturer had offered a contribution exchange. My response to this was that we had no interest in dealing with the manufacturer as our statutory rights lay with B&Q. Given the nature of the failure, we expected them to provide a repair/replacement. In the meantime a letter from one of their divisional offices had turned up where they were offering a refund for half (3/6) the purchase price. I pushed for an explanation of how this had been calculated and they admitted that they'd taken the 6 year period for bringing a claim and used this (eg we'd had 3 years of use). It was in no way related to the expected life expectancy of the hob itself. I stated that this wasn't acceptable and that we would only accept a repair/replacement failing which we would escalate the matter to the small claims court. The B&Q representative advised that he would have to consult with his legal department (this should have happened a bit earlier in the process surely??) and come back to me. In the event, he called back shortly afterwards and advised that he hadn't consulted with the legal department, rather he was prepared to offer us a complete refund for the hob. We could then use this to purchase a replacment via the contribution exchange offered by Electrolux with the proviso that the models offered were a direct replacement (in terms of size/cutout so our worktops wouldn't need additional cutting) and that the replacement was installed as part of the service. All in all, a result. I know that B&Q probably only offered the refund to stop it being escalated and also to effectively bring their liability in the matter to an end but it means that we get a working hob again and without any cost to ourselves. Mods, can you amend the title for the thread to reflect that a successful outcome was reached in this case please and thanks to Rebel11 et al for your advice.

So the email went off on Friday and we got a reply the same day advising that a head office team member would be in touch. For the record, what would constitute "too costly" in terms of a repair/replacement? EG The hob originally was £420 or so (excluding installation), the parts to repair it would be around £250 according to the Service Force engineer.

Thanks for the feedback. I shall send off the email as suggested and we'll see what happens next.

Thanks for the suggestion and contact details. Before I fire off a message to their Chief Exec, is my understanding of repair/replace correct? EG that they have to offer one of these unless it is not possible to (eg due to unavailability of spare parts). I'd like to be clear on whether they have the right to offer a partial refund or not so I know where I stand. Thanks in advance.

Hi rebel11, The kitchen including the hob was paid for using an interest free credit scheme. Are you going to suggest that I go after the credit company since they're jointly liable?

So, the latest situation is as follows: No engineer has visited from AEG. Instead AEG have outlined a contribution exchange instead. B&Q have verbally implied that they're intending to make a cash offer of some sort. Despite me pressing them for a response in writing, none has been received. Allegedly they've had to "escalate it to head office" which to be honest is their problem, not mine. From what I can see, B&Q first tried to pass the buck to AEG (who have no legal obligation towards me at all) and when that didn't seem to work, are now looking to pay me off instead. B&Q are trying to argue that the unit was deemed as beyond economical repair, when actually, all that happened is that the projected repair cost was more than Dometic & General would authorise for a first repair.This is an arbitrary limit imposed by D&G regardless of the cost of the unit. I suspect that's the basis on which they will attempt to insist on paying us off. My understanding is that unless the cost is disproportionately expensive, then B&Q have to provide either a repair or replacement. Only in the event that neither of these are possible, can they then fallback on a partial refund deducting an amount for the usage we've had. My understanding is that the repair is possible, the parts are available and that this would be significantly cheaper than a new unit (ignoring AEG's offer for the time being). As B&Q supplied & installed this as part of a fitted kitchen, they would also have to pay any associated installation charges that may be necessary if a replacement unit was provided (eg cutting the worktop to fit, wiring the new unit in etc). Is my understanding correct and what would you recommend as my next move (aside from telling them that I require a response within 7 days otherwise the matter will be submitted to the small claims court)?

Hi Rebel11, Thanks for the welcome. I'd read through those previously and they helped with the drafting of my email to B&Q. My email was sent overnight and first thing the next morning I had a response from their installation centre confirming that AEG would be calling me to arrange a repair of the unit. Full marks to B&Q for doing the decent thing, now lets see if AEG keep up their side. insider2012, thanks for the suggestion regarding the exchange scheme. In this instance my preference is to let the retailer handle this as AEG have no obligation to me in this instance.

The fault is that the unit will no longer switch on. The hob has touch sensitive controls and a power board directly beneath it. One or both of these appear to be faulty (the supply power is okay and has already been checked out by our usual electrician). A copy of the engineer's report has been sent off to B&Q's installation centre with a covering email stating that we require a repair of the unit, lets wait and see what they have to say.

We have a fitted kitchen supplied and installed by B&Q. The installation took place during the first half of 2009 and we moved in to the property around July 2009. The kitchen was financed using an interest free credit scheme that was being offered at the time. Within the last fortnight, our hob (a ceramic AEG electric hob) has decided to pack up. The hob has been very lightly used (perhaps twice a week on average) and we spend a fair amount of time away from home so it hasn't exactly been in the wars. The hob when installed new was around £420 (excluding installation). A Service Force engineer inspected the appliance, and declared it as "beyond economic repair". As I understand the situation: 1. I have a potential right of recourse against the retailer under SOGA and jointly the credit company under the Consumer Credit Act assuming that the hob wasn't sufficiently durable or can be shown to have had a fault not related to wear & tear and likely to have been present from the point of sale. 2. I contacted the retailer to see what they were prepared to do. At first they tried the usual "Your warranty lasts for a year, contact the manufacturer" rubbish until I mentioned my rights under SOGA and that my contract was with them. At that point, they then advised that I would need to provide some proof of the inherent fault. My question is this. What would constitute sufficient proof of an inherent fault that would then compel B&Q to do the right thing and arrange for a repair of the unit? As I understand it the relevant parts are freely available from AEG and to be blunt, I would expect a hob from a supposed "quality" brand to last a good deal longer than it has.