The case
A consumer bought two solar water heaters from a local company for €1,600. About a year later, they began to malfunction. The consumer called the company to fix the problem and, in response, the company sent a freelance technician to inspect and attempt repairs.
However, the repairs did not last long and, despite the heaters still being under guarantee, the consumer was repeatedly asked to cover the cost of repeated repairs. As the heaters continued to malfunction, the consumer asked the company to replace the faulty units.
When attempts to resolve the matter amicably failed, the consumer filed a formal complaint at the MCCAA’s Office for Consumer Affairs, seeking a resolution through its conciliation process. But, as the conciliation did not result in a satisfactory outcome, the consumer subsequently escalated the case to the Consumer Claims Tribunal to obtain compensation and resolution.
The tribunal’s considerations
The tribunal noted that the consumer was claiming a total of €2,090 from the defendant company, representing the full amount of damages incurred following the purchase of two solar water heaters. The heaters were originally bought for €1,600 and the consumer paid an additional €490 to freelance technicians sent by the company to attempt repairs on the defective units.
In support of their claim, the consumer submitted screenshots of messages exchanged with the company’s representative, in which the latter had promised that the heaters would be replaced. Despite this assurance, they were not replaced, leaving the consumer with two broken-down water heaters.
In reviewing the case, the tribunal referred to article 74(1) of the Consumer Affairs Act, which states: “In the event of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity or to receive a proportionate reduction in the price, or to terminate the contract […].”
The tribunal further cited article 21(1) of the same law, which states: “A tribunal shall determine the issues in dispute in any claim or counter-claim before it according to the substantive merits and justice of the case, and in accordance with equity.”
Considering these provisions, the tribunal concluded that the request for a refund and reimbursement of repair costs was fully within the consumer’s legal rights, as the products supplied failed to conform to the terms of the sales agreement and all attempts to remedy the defects had been unsuccessful.
“The company’s representative promised the heaters would be replaced. Despite this assurance, they were not”
Regarding the defendant company, the tribunal noted it did not challenge the consumer’s claim. The company neither submitted a formal reply nor attended the tribunal hearing, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. As a result, the tribunal was able to consider the evidence and arguments presented solely from the consumer’s side, highlighting the company’s lack of engagement in the process and its failure to respond to the ongoing dispute.
The tribunal further considered the evidence showing that both solar water heaters were beyond repair. Consequently, this was not a case where the defendant company could be granted the right to reclaim the heaters after reimbursing the consumer. Recognising that the products were irreparable, the tribunal determined that the consumer was entitled to full compensation without the obligation to return the defective units.
The tribunal’s decision
For the reasons outlined above, and after considering the circumstances of the case, the tribunal ruled as follows:
First, it declared the sales contract null and void, on the basis that the two solar water heaters did not conform to the terms of the sales agreement. Consequently, the defendant company was ordered to refund the consumer the sum of €1,600, representing the full amount paid for the heaters.
Secondly, the tribunal ordered the defendant company to reimburse the consumer the sum of €490, representing the costs incurred for repair attempts carried out by freelance technicians engaged by the company. These costs should have been borne by the company as the water heaters were still covered by a valid guarantee at the time the repairs were carried out.
Finally, the tribunal ruled that all costs related to the proceedings before the tribunal shall be paid by the defendant company.
Readers can access the full details of decisions issued by the Consumer Claims Tribunal, including information on the parties involved, by visiting: https://mccaa.org.mt/cct.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.
