Baumatic Cooker Hood Damaged - Advice Please

Kirsty_&_Pete

Hi
Two years ago we bought a Baumatic Cooker Hood & Cooker costing £2000 from their stand at the ideal home show.
These have been stored in their original packaging in our house (not garage) awaiting installation - yes it has taken a while

My OH opened the cooker hood box three weeks ago and found it was damaged - box inside has clear indendations and paint has chipped off corner of hood and it appears to have started to rust.
I have phoned Baumatic who said the product has been discontinued and before thet knew how long we had had product said they would ring round and find me a replacement which they phoned back and said they had and it would be delivered to me and damaged one collected.
When i explained we had had the hood two years they are now saying there is nothing they can do apart from directing me to a spray company in Windsor that maybe able to send me a paint match for us to repair.

I understand it has been two years but after reading about 6 years sale of goods act timescale i wondering whether this applies to us or not. Baumatic said i had 3 days to report damage.

Can anyone advise me please, many thanks. I am not taking the mickey with the two years and will accept responsibility for not checking item but want to make sure.

Thanks

Meepster

I'm sorry to say that there isn't a lot you can do, if it was faulty, it would be different, but is it is damaged and you have had it for over two years, you don't have any right to a claim. You are expected to check all goods within a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, as it has been sat in your house for this time you have no way of knowing if the damage was there when it was delivered or has happened since.

I don't know many companies that would accept responsibility after two months, never mind two years...

phlogeston

Kirsty_&_Pete wrote: »

Baumatic said i had 3 days to report damage.

Did they say that when you bought the item, or after you phoned them?

If the goods are faulty, you have up to 6 years to claim, but you may have some difficulty proving the goods were not damaged while in your care.

Take some photos of the packaging and the item.

Write to Baumatic and state that you want them to repair or replace the goods.

If they refuse, you could try a small claim.

Meepster

phlogeston wrote: »

If the goods are faulty, you have up to 6 years to claim, but you may have some difficulty proving the goods were not damaged while in your care.

But the item isn't faulty, it is DAMAGED. The law states that a purchaser has a REASONABLE amount of time to inspect the goods, then inform the seller and reject damaged goods. After that time, the goods have been accepted as "fit for purpose" by the purchaser. The seller has offered a REASONABLE amount of time (3 days) for the goods to be inspected, but the OP hasn't taken advantage of this. They have instead waited for 2 YEARS to inspect the goods and now aren't happy, well, sorry to say this, but tough. I wish I could afford to pay £2000 for something and leave it, unopened in a box for that amount of time...

phlogeston wrote: »

If they refuse, you could try a small claim.

Yes, you could, and whilst you're at it, put £10 on Celtic to win the English Premier League next season, £20 on Elvis and Princess Diana being found, shacked up, on a desert island, oh and whilst you're at it, make sure you play the lottery this weekend, with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, bonus ball 7...:rotfl:

Sorry to sound cinical, but I really do wish ppl would get their facts straight and stop giving false hopes to posters...

hollydays

The onus was on you to check the goods.Whew! if I spent £2000 i would be checking it with a fine toothcomb!

phlogeston

mwilletts wrote: »

But the item isn't faulty, it is DAMAGED. The law states that a purchaser has a REASONABLE amount of time to inspect the goods, then inform the seller and reject damaged goods.

If you could just quote any case law that defines what reasonable time is, then you may have a valid point.

The OP said he/she was told 3 days to inspect after he/she telephoned Baumatic, hence my question. If it wasn't in the original T&C, it did not form part of the contract.

Reasonable time is not defined in law and so, if on first inspection the goods are found to be damaged (that is a one way of desribing a fault or faulty) the the OP can reject as long as he/she does it at the first opportunity.

I spout thing like this because I have a recent law degree and spent a year of my life studying contract law.

Maybe if you could get you head out of your a*rse you would know that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the advice I gave.

phlogeston

hollydays wrote: »

The onus was on you to check the goods.Whew! if I spent £2000 i would be checking it with a fine toothcomb!

No, legally the onus is on the seller to deliver undamaged goods.

phlogeston

mwilletts wrote: »

The seller has offered a REASONABLE amount of time (3 days) for the goods to be inspected.

Just to confirm, you are aware that such a term in a contract carries no weight in a consumer contract (just check the Sale of Goods Act).

Any one who has carried out any building work on their house will know that an item may remain boxed ready for fitting for weeks.

Anyone who has bought a Christmas present in autumn will know that the recipient may not open and inspect the goods for a number of months.

As this is a consumer contract, it would be for a court to decide what was reasonable, taking into account all the circumstances.

Meepster

phlogeston wrote: »

If you could just quote any case law that defines what reasonable time is, then you may have a valid point.
The OP said he/she was told 3 days to inspect after he/she telephoned Baumatic, hence my question. If it wasn't in the original T&C, it did not form part of the contract.

TBQH it doesn't matter if the 3 days were quoted in the original T&C's or not. 2 years would not be a "reasonable amont of time" in ANY court of law. In theory, you're ideas may seem sound (to you anyhow) in reality, nope, not a chance.

phlogeston wrote: »

No, legally the onus is on the seller to deliver undamaged goods.

OK Mr. I've been studying contract law for a year. How do you wish to prove the seller DIDN'T deliver undamaged goods? I would LOVE for you to show me a case file where a buyer SUCCESSFULLY proved that goods that were delivered in excess of 2 years beforehand, were lawfully proven to be damaged when delivered. I've been dealing with contract law for over 10 years and the longest time period I have ever seen accepted was 5 months, and that was an exceptional case.

phlogeston wrote: »

Maybe if you could get you head out of your a*rse.

Now thats just nasty, why don't you spend the next year learning some manners...

cattie

Baumatic have excellent customer service in my experience & generally if a fault is found after installation within the guarantee period they bend over backwards to put things right.

Your problem, as you've stated ,is because you didn't inspect the goods during the 2 yr period.

It's a long shot, but if you have a really good reason why you were unable to access the box to inspect the contents before you did, then you could try writing a letter detailing this to send to Baumatic. It may not help at all, but for the price of a stamp is worth a try.

phlogeston

mwilletts wrote: »

Now thats just nasty, why don't you spend the next year learning some manners...

I only respond in the same manner as the original poster.

Your post was rude and sarcastic, do not expect me to extend you any more respect than you deserve.