Home Kitchen GE FRENCH DOOR REFRIGERATOR MODEL: GNE27JYMNFFS BRAND: GE

GE FRENCH DOOR REFRIGERATOR MODEL: GNE27JYMNFFS BRAND: GE

0
GE FRENCH DOOR REFRIGERATOR
MODEL: GNE27JYMNFFS
BRAND: GE

I am respectfully writing to complain about a defective product and request action on my behalf. I am not an attorney, but a highly aggrieved consumer (my wife and I are hereafter referred to collectively as complainant). Following is a sequential narrative of my complaint. Complainant apologizes for unknown information, offering the justification that he did not foresee a need to take detailed notes from the beginning of this debacle.

1. On, October 17, 2021, for at or about $2297.96, complainant purchased a General Electric brand French door with bottom freezer in stainless steel refrigerator, model number GNE27JYMNFFS, serial number TS302708, from the d.b.a. Home Depot store at 4045 Lawson’s Ridge Drive Madison Alabama 35757, phone number 256-837-6658. The order number was [REDACTED].
2. On or about November 06, 2021, the said refrigerator was delivered to complainant’s home at [REDACTED], and assembled there.
3. Between the refrigerator delivery date and date of receipt of the April 19, 2022 email advising of the recall, the freezer door handle of said refrigerator became dislocated.
4. On or about April 19, 2022 complainant received an email from Home Depot advising of a recall number 22-117 dated April 14, 2022, website
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2022/GE-Appliances-a-Haier-Company-Recalls-BottomĀ­Freezer-French-Door-Refrigerators-Due-to-Fall-Hazard involving “six models of GE-brand French Door Refrigerators with bottom freezers in fingerprint resistant stainless steel, which were manufactured from February 2020 through August 2021” ostensibly initiated by the CPSC ([U.S.] Consumer Product Safety Commission), and possibly a Canadian Product Safety Commission. This recall was voluntary and ostensibly put out by GE Appliances, a Haier company (GEA),
5. On an unknown date complainant attempted to reach a representative at telephone hotline (1-888-345-4671) created for arranging repair under the recall. After waiting on hold listening to music for approximately 30 minutes, the complainant was advised by a human operator that the system was down and that no action could be taken at that time to schedule the defective product for repair.
6. On an unknown date complainant went to d.b.a. Home Depot store at 4045 Lawson’s Ridge Drive Madison Alabama 35757, phone number 256-837-6658. The employee in the appliance section there advised that the employee was in a similar or identical situation, and implied that the employee had fixed the situation with super glue. More troubling, the content of the conversation led the complainant to believe that at that time merchandise subject to recall was being sold off the floor. However, complainant did not actually investigate that, and so cannot offer any evidence to prove it.
7. On or about August 04, 2022, complainant for a second time attempted to reach an operator at the telephone hotline created for arranging repair under the recall. At this time the first repair was successfully scheduled.
8. On or about August 08, 2022, representatives of contractor d.b.a. On Tech Smart Services
L.L.C. [REDACTED] attempted to repair the freezer door handle the first time at the complainant’s home.
9. Some unknown time after August 08, 2022, the freezer door handle of said refrigerator became dislocated a second time.
10. On an unknown data complainant thinks that by email he contacted On Tech Smart Services L.L.C. [REDACTED],
11. On or about August 22, 2022, OnTech Smart Services L.L.C. [REDACTED] contacted complainant by email advising them to schedule an appointment.
12. On an unknown date complainant again attempted to reach an operator at the telephone hotline created for arranging repair under the recall. At this time the second repair was successfully scheduled. Also, complainant specifically advised the cordial representative that she should advise the repairmen not to attempt the repair if they were unwilling or unable to successfully complete it.
13. On or about September 08, 2022, representatives of contractor d.b.a. On Tech Smart Services L.L.C. [REDACTED] attempted a second time to repair the freezer door handle at the complainant’s home. Complainant’s wife advises complainant that the repairmen advised something like the handles were meant to pop off.
14. Within approximately two weeks after September 08,2022, the freezer door handle of said refrigerator became dislocated a third time.
15. Freezer door handle is currently disattached from the refrigerator, and the complainant has no hopes of getting it successfully repaired by General Electric or its representatives.

Complainant has not consulted an attorney on this matter and there is no current court action pending, although he is advising that he is simultaneously seeking recourse with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and the office of the Alabama Attorney General, and that he anticipates maximizing General Electric’s loss of reputation for designing and building, minimizing General Electric’s profit from selling electronic appliances, and recouping ill-gotten gains from selling electronic appliances.

Based on the following allegations:
1. Complainant has been within the period of the preceding narrative medically labeled as a fall risk,
2. Complainant has not attempted to repair the refrigerator himself due to the fact that he is not qualified to do so, doing so might void the warranty, doing so could expose himself, family members, and guests to future potential peril, and/or experts have already unsuccessfully attempted to repair it,
3. Complainant has exhausted reasonable attempts to get the defective product repaired under arrangements ostensibly brokered with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
4. A reasonable customer could not expect a third repair to be any more successful than the first two unsuccessful attempts,
5. General Electric has performed defective design. Such negligence is unacceptable from a company that has had 130 years to perfect its design, production, and customer support methodologies. Complainant states this from an engineering standpoint as a holder of one undergraduate engineering degree and two graduate engineering degrees, and having successfully passed the Alabama Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam around the time he graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering from an Accreditation [REDACTED] certified engineering school. He also is a co-inventor on at least 5 (five) United States patents. General Electric has likely taken active steps to minimize its materials and assembly costs, including locating plants in foreign countries, where safety oversight and regulation situations most likely are much less stringent than those in the United States,
6. This defective design has caused loss of reasonably expected usage for the complainant,
7. According to the recall webpage mentioned earlier, there are possibly up to 155,000 (one hundred fifty-five thousand) customers in a similar situation as the complainant. It strains credulity to believe that this complainant is a statistical outlier in this population,

complainant requests that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission assists him in obtaining recourse. He maintains that legal penalties for egregious negligence and lack of support by General Electric cannot be evaded by claiming expiration of warranty or agreement to mediate. He also respectfully maintains that his bona fide attempts to follow the CPSC’s available methods for recourse have been entirely ineffective.

Please contact me at the above address, my email address [REDACTED], and/or my telephone number [REDACTED].

Sincerely,
[REDACTED]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here