Faulty product with zero acceptance of responsibility

<p>My parents purchased a R15'000 Miele stove from Stax Dunkeld at the beginning of August</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Delivery - 4th August</strong></p> <p>Product delivered on the 4th August.</p> <p>The product was sealed, delivery was accepted by my parents helper and signed for by her. </p> <p>There was zero demonstration of whether the stove was in good working order.<br />The deliverer did not leave any documentation with the product upon delivery.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Fault found - 5th August</strong></p> <p>The stove was installed on the 5th August by stax.</p> <p>Upon installation, it was found that the stove had a hairline crack.</p> <p>Informed stax of this immediately and stax informed Miele on 6th August.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>A circus tale</strong></p> <p>A manager (Liezl van Wyk) from Miele came to inspect the stove and took a photo, promising to follow up and revert.</p> <p>My parents had to follow up with Miele the next week. </p> <p>They were informed the issue was escalated to Liezl's boss - Madeleine Furstenberg.</p> <p>Madeleine immidiately denied any responsibility on the part of Miele, sighting that the POD was clean and that they could only have acted if the stove was inspected upon delivery. She further noted that she was only notified on the 11th of August.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Escalation to the CEO</strong></p> <p>My parents noted that</p> <p>(1) the stove was not received by my parents, but their helper on their behalf who could not be expected to inspect the product thoroughly</p> <p>(2) There was no explanation by the deliverer, Miele or Stax at any point that the product should be carefully inspected for fault before accepting delivery and that returns are not accepted under any circumstance after delivery</p> <p>(3) My parents notified Miele and Stax within 2 days of delivery of a latent defect with the product </p> <p>This issue was escalated to the CEO of Miele South Africa, who again refuted any responsibility and suggested that my parents put an order down for a new stove.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Miele indicated that they were notified on the 11th August, when in fact they were notified on the 6th of August (within 7 days of delivery).</p> <p>Miele suggest that a latent defect is the fault of the customer, as they assume that they can shift full responsibility to thoroughly inspect the product on the consumer before accepting delivery.</p> <p>Miele's idea of a solution was to suggest that the customer put in an order for a new R15'000 stove at the customers own expense.</p> <p> </p> <p>Read into the above what you will, but I suggest, Miele, that your customer service is rude, your communications with my parents was unhelpful, and your assumption that full responsibility for this defect falls squarely on my parents regardless of notification within 7 days is *******.</p> <p> </p> <p>I look forward to your response.</p>