When Your Warranty Becomes a Nightmare: A Consumer’s Battle with Grundig

The Catastrophic Failure of a “Fixed” Machine

Imagine pulling your clothes out of the washing machine only to find them burnt, shriveled, and completely ruined. Now imagine this happening not once, but three times—each time after being assured by professional engineers that your machine was repaired and safe to use. This is exactly what happened to Benji from Peterborough, whose Grundig washer/dryer turned from a household convenience into a source of repeated disasters and frustration. His ordeal began approximately two years into the machine’s three-year warranty period when the appliance first malfunctioned, destroying an entire load of laundry. An engineer was dispatched who diagnosed the problem as a faulty thermostat, made the repair, tested the machine, and declared it ready for use. Trusting this professional assessment, Benji loaded the machine again—only to have another full load of clothes burnt and shriveled. A second engineer visit followed, this time identifying the problem as a sticking fascia that caused buttons to be inadvertently pressed during the wash cycle due to vibrations. Once again, the machine was declared fixed and tested. And once again, disaster struck when the next load came out damaged. It wasn’t until the third engineer visit that someone finally conducted a thorough inspection, taking the machine completely apart and discovering faulty wiring within the unit. This engineer remarked that it was “a miracle” the machine hadn’t failed sooner, suggesting the problem had been present from the beginning. By this point, Benji had accumulated £1,000 worth of damaged clothing and bedding, all ruined by a machine that was supposed to be under warranty protection.

The Runaround: When Customer Service Fails

The physical damage to Benji’s property was only half the problem. What followed was a months-long struggle to get any meaningful response or compensation from Grundig. Despite making more than a dozen phone calls to the company, promised manager callbacks never materialized, and compensation was nowhere in sight. When the Money Blog team at Sky News decided to intervene on Benji’s behalf, they discovered just how dysfunctional the customer service process had become. The investigation by Money Blog editor Jimmy Rice revealed that Beko, which owns Grundig, was in the midst of a merger process, integrating systems with Hotpoint and Beko. The company acknowledged that this transition had caused delays and that evidence Benji had provided could no longer be located in their systems. While a spokesman said they weren’t making excuses and apologized for the situation, the practical reality was that Benji’s case had essentially fallen into a corporate black hole. The frustration intensified when the customer service team requested photos of the damaged items. Benji promptly sent these the very same day—a fact confirmed by the email records he shared with the Money Blog—yet Beko repeatedly insisted they had never received anything. The problem wasn’t Benji’s compliance or diligence; it was that the company’s email infrastructure appeared incapable of handling basic tasks like receiving a photo, even when sent via a link. The absurdity of the situation was highlighted when the resolution finally came through the press officer agreeing to receive the photos at his personal email address, completely bypassing the dysfunctional corporate systems.

An Insulting Offer: Adding Injury to Insult

Once Grundig finally received and reviewed the photos, their response added insult to injury. The customer services team sent an email that seemed to dismiss the severity of the damage entirely. Their assessment claimed that “heavy creasing in clothing is not a permanent condition and can commonly be rectified through several processes, including professional dry cleaning.” They further stated that based on the images provided, the items didn’t appear to be structurally compromised by the creasing, and that decorative transfers and materials appeared free from defect. This characterization of the damage completely misrepresented what had actually happened. As a goodwill gesture, they offered £250 “as a contribution towards the professional rectification of the creasing identified.” Benji’s response was understandably firm and clear: the clothes weren’t merely creased—they were burnt during the wash cycle, with lettering and logos ruined and the fabric itself permanently altered beyond any possibility of repair. Some items were discolored in ways that no amount of ironing, pressing, or professional cleaning could remedy. The clothes were not in their original state and never would be again. Benji presented a counter-claim that was straightforward and itemized: £968 for the damage costs plus £529 for a refund of the machine itself, totaling £1,497. Beko rejected the claim for the washing machine refund on the grounds that the machine was three years old and therefore outside their two-year manufacturer warranty period. This position, as consumer law experts would later point out, completely ignored the Consumer Rights Act, which provides an implied warranty for up to six years in cases where products fail due to inherent faults present at the time of purchase.

Understanding Your Legal Rights: The Consumer Rights Act

The standoff between Benji and Grundig highlights a common gap between what companies claim their obligations are and what the law actually requires. Consumer disputes expert Scott Dixon, consulted by the Money Blog, outlined several important legal principles that apply to situations like this. First and foremost, Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that a trader must perform their service with reasonable care and skill—a test that Grundig clearly failed in this case. The repeated failures to properly diagnose and repair the machine, followed by assurances that it was safe to use when it clearly wasn’t, demonstrate a fundamental breach of this duty. However, Dixon suggested that while Benji could continue pursuing Grundig directly, he might have better success shifting his attention to the retailer where he purchased the machine. This is because under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the retailer is in “breach of contract” for selling a faulty washer dryer. The key issue is that because Benji bought the machine more than six months ago, the burden of proof shifts to him to demonstrate that the goods had inherent faults at the point of purchase. Normally, this would require an independent report from a reputable professional, but in Benji’s case, this hurdle is already cleared—the manufacturer’s own engineers have confirmed it’s a manufacturer’s fault, specifically the faulty wiring that the third engineer discovered was present from the beginning. Dixon recommended putting the complaint in writing with all evidence clearly presented, including a timeline of events, evidence of the failed repairs, and receipts or proof of purchase for both the product and the losses incurred. The appropriate remedy would be both a refund for the machine and compensation for the ruined items, though the retailer is entitled to make a “fair use” deduction for the time the machine was owned and used.

Two Types of Losses: What You Can Claim

Understanding what you can claim in situations like this requires distinguishing between two types of losses recognized in consumer law. Direct losses are those that naturally result from a breach of contract or could reasonably have been foreseeable at the time of purchase. In Benji’s situation, the ruined clothing and bedding clearly fall into this category. These are direct and foreseeable consequences of a faulty washer dryer—when you buy a washing machine, it’s entirely foreseeable that if it malfunctions and burns clothes, those clothes will be damaged. Since Grundig confirmed the faults were inherent when Benji bought the defective appliance, he is fully entitled to be compensated for these losses. The £968 he’s claiming for damaged items is therefore well-founded in law. Indirect losses, on the other hand, are those that occur as a knock-on effect of the breach rather than directly from it. These are only recoverable if the loss was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the contract, meaning the retailer knew, or should have known, that such losses would be incurred. Things like time spent trying to resolve the complaint, stress caused by poor customer service, or other inconveniences typically fall into this category. While these are real costs to the consumer, they’re usually addressed through goodwill gestures rather than legal compensation. In Benji’s case, the months of phone calls, the frustration of promised callbacks that never came, and the stress of dealing with dysfunctional email systems would fall into this category. While not typically compensable through legal action, they certainly justify a more generous goodwill settlement than the insulting £250 initially offered.

Your Options: From Negotiation to Court

If negotiation and customer service channels fail—as they clearly have in Benji’s case—several escalation options exist. The first step is taking the matter to small claims court in England or following the simple procedure in Scotland. While it’s technically possible to take Grundig to court for breaching the warranty terms and conditions, the strongest legal position is against the retailer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, because that’s who the actual contract of sale was with. Before filing a claim, Dixon recommended a strategic approach: send screenshots of the draft court papers setting out the case and demanding a refund within seven days, with a clear statement that failure to comply will result in lodging a claim in small claims court. This tactic often produces results without actually having to follow through with litigation, as companies generally prefer to settle rather than incur legal costs and the negative publicity of a court case. There’s also an alternative route that many consumers don’t know about: Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This provision offers free additional protection if you paid by credit card for purchases between £100 and £30,000. Under Section 75, the credit card provider becomes jointly liable with the retailer if there has been a breach of contract or misrepresentation. This means you can pursue your claim against the credit card company, which often has better customer service and more streamlined dispute resolution processes than manufacturers or retailers. For future purchases, this is why consumer experts always recommend paying by credit card when possible—it provides a powerful additional layer of protection at no extra cost. Benji’s case serves as a cautionary tale about the gap between warranty promises and reality, and a reminder that consumers have significant legal protections beyond what companies might initially acknowledge.