Over a considerable period, I corresponded with Rheem Australia regarding warranty considerations regarding my three-year-old continuous gas water system. I eventually involved the NSW Dept. of Fair Trading. Their response was
“I refer to your correspondence dated 4 February 2021 regarding Rheem Australia Pty Ltd.
Your concerns were brought to the attention of Ms Natalie Bullon, Customer Service Support Administrator, Rheem Australia Pty Limited, who advised that after having the matter carefully reviewed by Rheem senior staff, they do not believe that your rights under either the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) or the applicable warranty requires Rheem to reimburse you for the costs incurred to rectify your hot water system.
The above outcome to your complaint concludes the dispute resolution process with NSW Fair Trading.
Upon reflection I sent the following response by email.
Thank you for providing Rheem’s opinion.
What is the opinion of Fair Trading?
Concurrently, I “reached out” (as you do nowadays) to our Local member on 3 March 2021. I asked “Your review of the appropriateness of Fair Trading’s apparent level of activity in this case, and their response, would be greatly appreciated.’ In response to a concurrent complaint to the Dept. of Fair Trading, I received a phone call from the Department, which basically said that Fair Trading would offer no opinion about my complaint as this is not their role. Fair Trading does not adjudicate on complaints between traders and consumers. Indeed, traders are not obliged to even deal or co-operate with the Dept. of Fair Trading.
For me, this information raises a significant question. What is the value added by having a Dept. of Fair Trading, and indeed why even have a Dept of Fair Trading?
The following reply was received today.
I repeat my original question. What is the value added by having a Dept. of Fair Trading, and indeed why even have a Dept of Fair Trading?