‘Aga says my broken £8k cooker can’t be fixed and I’m livid’ ‘Police seized my phone but I’m stuck paying the Vodafone contract’

QRegrettably I have had reason to complain to Aga in the strongest possible terms. I have recently learnt that our Rayburn gas cooker, which we purchased in 2008 for the sum of about £8,000, is now unusable. This is because it has broken down and Aga has told us it discontinued the burner kit we need to fix the cooker three years ago. Therefore the entire cooker is obsolete.

This is highly unethical for a brand which, by the wording on its own website, is apparently “built for life and built to last”. And especially since the Rayburn 400 natural gas cooker is still being promoted at an even higher price than we paid.

We are in a pitiful situation in which we have spent a vast sum on a supposedly premium oven with a reputation as being of highly durable quality, yet it has lower life expectancy and repairability than a cheap Ikea oven.

Unless you can help us find the burner replacement, we face having to refit our kitchen and install a new heating source in addition to a new oven, which will cause a huge level of disruption, and of course be vastly expensive.

Planned obsolescence could perhaps be expected when buying a mobile telephone, but not a top- ofthe- range cooker from Aga. I have tried complaining, but the company will not do the right thing.

– AB, via email

Dear Reader

AI was not surprised to hear that you were livid that Aga was saying it could not fix your extremely expensive cooker. Because of the long lifespan of Rayburn and other Aga cookers, there are numerous “spare parts” retailers that specialise in discontinued parts which you can find online but, of course, even these may be at risk of selling out at some point and therefore cannot be relied on.

Your Rayburn is 16 years old, which is by no means ancient for a cooker that, as you say, is designed to “last a lifetime”. You were told some of the parts you needed were available but not others, meaning that any attempted repair would cost hundreds of pounds and may have been doomed to fail. Therefore you were advised against doing this, however no alternative solution was offered, causing you great frustration.

Things changed when I stepped in and contacted Aga on your behalf. Someone from its “executive office” came back quickly saying you had been misinformed, and that the part you were told had been discontinued in 2021 (the burner bray) would in fact be available in a week’s time, meaning your cooker could be repaired after all.

You were extremely grateful and say you wonder whether this spare part would have miraculously “come back in stock” had I not got involved.

It strikes me you are far from the only owner of older appliances in this muddle over old spare parts, but you might be interested to know that in 2021 the Government introduced new “right to repair” legislation that forces manufacturers of consumer appliances to make spare parts available to buy within two years of an appliance going on sale, and up until either seven or 10 years after the product has been discontinued, depending on the part.

The rules (at least for now) only cover dishwashers, fridges, washers and television sets, and do not include cookers, but it’s something to keep in mind if other appliances go wrong in the future. All the best.

QI unknowingly filmed a horrible illegal act involving my very young child on my mobile phone which led to my device being held by police.

I’ve been told it will soon need to be destroyed, because of the nature of the offence committed.

The phone is on a contract with Vodafone and has just shy of 30 months remaining of the contract. I have contacted Vodafone, with whom I also have phone insurance, but it is not willing to help me. With the insurance company refusing to allow me to put in a claim as technically the phone isn’t damaged.

At a time of great distress, I feel further victimised by being denied the eligibility of being able to claim for a replacement phone from Vodafone and being forced to continue paying for a contract. I have offered to be further out of pocket and pay the £100 excess to claim through the insurance, but Vodafone will not process this.

I do not have the funds to continue paying for a phone I do not have alongside the cost of trying to replace my phone either with another new handset or contract. I feel incredibly penalised for something that is already very upsetting. I want to forget all about this ordeal, without being pushed further into debt and stress.

– Anon

Dear Reader

AI asked you how you accidentally came to video an illegal act involving your child on your phone, and what you told me shocked me to the core. It is not for repeating here because of an ongoing police investigation, however it is safe to say you have been through a deeply distressing time. Keeping going as a single mother throughout this ordeal, and with significant money struggles to contend with, cannot have been easy.

I wanted to help in any way I could, so I agreed to approach Vodafone on your behalf with your crime reference number.

This is not the first time I have come across insurers being unwilling to treat “seized” phones in the same way as they would if they were stolen or lost, which is deeply unfair. However, Vodafone has in place a policy which is supposed to ensure that customers in these circumstances receive immediate support and a new device.

In your case, it seems the company made an error, as you should have been transferred to its specialist care team and been dealt with swiftly.

Instead you were transferred to Vodafone’s insurance provider, which then told you that your policy did not cover “seized” phones.

For this, Vodafone has now apologised and provided you with a like-forlike replacement phone.

You are extremely grateful and relieved to be able to move on without the ball and chain of an expensive phone contract with no handset attached. I wish you the best of luck and sincerely hope the person who perpetrated this heinous crime gets the justice they deserve.

A Vodafone spokesman said: “We’re sorry this was not handled correctly in the first instance. When a customer faces unique circumstances such as this, we work quickly to support them so they can stay connected. Unfortunately this customer was transferred to our insurance partner, rather than through the correct channel.

“When we were notified of this error we worked quickly to resolve the issue and we are pleased we were able to get a new phone for the customer.”