Our hapless consumers are home on the range

Seize laughter wherever you can find it would be my advice for this year, if I were in the habit of dishing out such triteness.

A month in, I have been desperate to find things to laugh about.

Shane Jones would probably label me a cry-baby and tell me to go home to the Matiri.

I have a few labels I could slap on the vulgar Mr Jones too, and some explicit directions, but I have no desire to encourage his attention-seeking crassness.

Hilarity was not on my mind when I raised concern about the state of my seven-and-a-half-year-old stove in early December after discovering some small holes along a ridge in its oven floor.

I took a photo of it and fired off an email to the manufacturer, asking whether it was repairable, and if the material used for the bottom of the oven was robust enough to comply with the longevity expectations of the Consumer Guarantees Act.

My hope was that approaching the manufacturer directly might speed things up. (In a previous situation where my six-year-old fridge died because it was faulty, forcing me to resort to a chilly bin to keep things cool, it was only after I contacted its maker, the retailer came to the party with a replacement. I laughed when the retailer then tried to take credit for the deal.)

The following day, I forwarded my email to the shop which had sold me the stove. In my initial discussion with the retailer, it was keen to emphasise the stove was out of warranty.

That was no surprise to me, but as I pointed out, Consumer NZ says you should be able to expect a stove to last 15 years.

At one point in the conversation, it was suggested if I had bought a more expensive model, I could expect it to last longer and that you might only get five years trouble-free cooking out of a cheaper stove.

Really? Who tells the hapless customer that at the time of purchase?

It is a nonsense.

But the laugh-out-loud moment came from this email from the manufacturer’s global contact centre last month: ‘‘Our technical advisory team have reviewed your case and advised: ‘The range was left to rust for many years. The customer probably does not live far from the sea or some other environmental cause. The liner is not economical to replace, and the only option would be an upgrade. Since it is just cosmetic damage, there is no need to do anything about it, and when the unit fails and needs repairs, then would be the time to get a new one instead of spending money on it, but not now’.’’

As I explained, I have been cooking in my oven rather than leaving it to rust, and if sea air is the cause, then most ovens in the country must be in peril.

Regarding the notion holes in an oven bottom are merely cosmetic — why do all ovens not have a colander-style base?

My sister, the Queen of Cookery (also originally from the Matiri) reckons I have been doggedly strapping my stove to my back and biking down to the Broad Bay beach to cook tea, endangering road users with the snaking of my ridiculously long extension cord.

If only I were that strong.

At the time of writing, my situation remains unresolved despite it being referred to the chain store’s ‘‘escalation team’’. A discount on a new stove is a possibility, but nobody has spelled it out properly yet.

My wider concern is that many retailers, and both my fridge and stove stores are part of big-box chains, do their darnedest to fob less persistent customers off with their outside-warranty talk and delays, paying lip service to the quality/fit for purpose requirements of the Consumer Guarantees Act which has been around for more than 30 years.

When I asked Consumer NZ about this, it said it regularly received complaints about retailers misleading consumers about their rights under the Act.

This was a breach of the Fair-Trading Act (FTA), and traders could face hefty penalties if found guilty.

‘‘In reality, many get away with it because consumers don’t always understand their rights, or when consumer law might apply to their situation.’’

Consumer NZ did not think consumers should be responsible for holding businesses to account — ‘‘we’d like to see companies better understand and comply with their legal obligations’’.

It would welcome a review of the FTA and stronger penalties to better incentivise businesses to comply.

In the meantime, I suggest concerned consumers would do well to school themselves up about their rights, starting with the Consumer NZ website, and hope their persistence will result in more than responses which provoke incredulous laughter.

■Elspeth McLean is a Dunedin writer.