Hi @ErinTurner, I believe the inquiry is closed but I am working on contacting the Productivity Commission with an evidential example just in case. Edit: The PC advised the report has gone to government so they cannot accept additional submissions.
The history is a KWC Ono mixer that has a veg spray. The mixer was expensive. The spray part has exhibited the same operational problem leading to the same failure at similar intervals of about 2 years. In 9 years; I am on the 4th spray part that is now failing to operate properly.
Disassembling one reveals the wear parts are 4 O-rings and potentially a spring. It seems a ‘simple device’ yet is ‘not repairable’ by definition. For clarity all I asked for the last 2 failures were the specs for the O-rings… The importer, PR Kitchens cannot/will not provide repair instructions or the specification for the O-rings. While under warranty the part is routinely replaced. Post warranty the spray part is offered for $468+ shipping.
PRK seems aware the retailer owns ‘the bag’ under the ACL, and as far as they are concerned Consumer Affairs Victoria is less threatening than a miniature Chihuahua. Reviewing Consumer Affairs web site seems to confirm that is going to be the case if it comes to that, but that is another matter. It appears the Right to Repair and the reality of how companies can respond or decline to respond to the ACL could make a Right to Repair outcome for consumers less likely if there is a similarity. As with the ACL itself, companies that are willing to do step up, and those that are not willing do not step up, and do not need to pending the consumer achieving a successful litigation/tribunal determination.
Edit:The retailer is on the case and doing the right thing!
