Surely this contravenes SOGA?

gt5500

I have ordered a sink and tap from TapsUK, it is yet to be delivered but I am concerned that their delivery t&c's fly in the face of my statutory rights. This is the text from their delivery confirmation email-

"Due to the fragile nature of your order, all items must be checked for any obvious sign of damage before you sign for your goods. Any items with obvious sign of damage must be refused and sign for as damaged.

If you write the words "Unchecked" or similar on the delivery note, then you are accepting that the goods arrived in good condition and later claims for damaged will not be considered.

If someone else is signing for the goods on your behalf, you must advise them that the goods must be checked for any obvious sign for damage.
For full delivery conditions, please visit our website."

Would I be right to think this is complete hogwash and can be ignored as such, I think consumer law ays that you are merely signing to accept delivery not to say that the goods are acceptable. Funnily enough I used to work for MFI and their bathroom supplier had similar t&c's I was always incredibly uncomfortable dealing with this issue and I was always sure it was not 100% legal. If anyone is wondering, I left MFI and sales altogether, got sick of being told to lie to people. What do people think about the Tapsuk t&c's should I inform trading standards or someone?

scheming_gypsy

Yep it does, what they're really saying is..

"dear customer,

As we all know, delivery drivers are often heavy handed chimps and goods get broken. Once you have signed for them in good condition the delivery company wipe their hands of any blame for damage as the recipent says they did their job perfectly; this then means we're buggered if we try to get compensation from them.
With that in mind, please please please, check the goods or sign as unchecked.

Thanks and cheerio

Company X'


So although you are still covered by the SOGA, they try to say it's your own fault if they arrive damaged as some people won't chase it, and they won't lose out through replacing it.
It is worth signing as unchecked though, just so they can still claim if it is damaged.

gt5500

Yep I was thinking along the same lines, lets just theoretically if the items arrive and appear OK but I later find damage, what can I do?. They will say "it says in our t&c's blah blah blah" and I will say doesn't mean squat consumers rights say so, how would you resolve the problem just hope that they are honest enough?

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

It is worth signing as unchecked though, just so they can still claim if it is damaged.

If you read their t&c's it says that signing as unchecked will be taken as signed in good condition!, that really takes the biscuit and is bordering on fraud in my mind.
Oh and another thing if this does contravene the law surely they should not be allowed to publish it, as you say many customers will read it and feel they have no rights and drop the case, how can we take these con men to task?

fred7777

You would be right in thinking it's complete hogwash. But I wouldn't ignore it.

Looking at the terms on their website it's mostly badly written &poorly thought out but it indicates to me they would be unhelpful if you have a problem and I would cancel the order and go somewhere else.

gt5500

fred7777 wrote: »

You would be right in thinking it's complete hogwash. But I wouldn't ignore it.

Looking at the terms on their website it's mostly badly written &poorly thought out but it indicates to me they would be unhelpful if you have a problem and I would cancel the order and go somewhere else.

I sort of agree, however if I go to another supplier I have no idea of whether or not their service level will be any better, especially considering the other places that stocked the items I ordered looked even more shady. I would have bought them in a store but no where local was close to the price (we are talking £80-100 online vs high street). .

scheming_gypsy

gt5500 wrote: »

If you read their t&c's it says that signing as unchecked will be taken as signed in good condition!, that really takes the biscuit and is bordering on fraud in my mind.
Oh and another thing if this does contravene the law surely they should not be allowed to publish it, as you say many customers will read it and feel they have no rights and drop the case,

It isn't fraud as you're telling the delivery company that you accepted it in good condition. It doesn't mean your statutory rights are affected

unholyangel

OFT's Unfair Contract Terms guidance:
Consumers have a right to a reasonable opportunity to examine goods
and reject them if faulty. In the case of complex goods, a reasonable
opportunity to examine means a chance to try the goods out.
Consumers cannot legally be deprived of this right by being required to
sign 'satisfaction' notes on delivery, or by being required to return
goods in a way that may not be possible – for example, in disposable
packaging that they are likely to discard after opening.

gt5500

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

It isn't fraud as you're telling the delivery company that you accepted it in good condition. It doesn't mean your statutory rights are affected

Reading between the lines yes, but the companies t&c's say -

"If you write the words "Unchecked" or similar on the delivery note, then you are accepting that the goods arrived in good condition and later claims for damaged will not be considered."

What I was saying was that taking the word "unchecked" and claiming it means you have accepted the goods in good condition is bordering on fraud. If I sign to say I haven't checked it then I cannot see anyway that the company can claim this to mean I have accepted them in good condition, I do not know if they are in good condition as I haven't checked them. If my rights are not affected then they should be made to clearly state that in the t&c's.

gt5500

unholyangel wrote: »

OFT's Unfair Contract Terms guidance:
Consumers have a right to a reasonable opportunity to examine goods
and reject them if faulty. In the case of complex goods, a reasonable
opportunity to examine means a chance to try the goods out.
Consumers cannot legally be deprived of this right by being required to
sign 'satisfaction' notes on delivery, or by being required to return
goods in a way that may not be possible – for example, in disposable
packaging that they are likely to discard after opening.

Thank you this is very helpful, I couldn't find this statement when I was searching round (although I was pretty sure it existed).

starrystarry

I nearly ordered from tapsuk last year, then I read some reviews and thought better of it...

http://www.reviewcentre.com/Online-Home-and-Garden-DIY-Stores/TapsUK-www-tapsuk-com-reviews_1376011

Hope your experience is more positive than those reviewers.

gt5500

starrystarry wrote: »

Hope your experience is more positive than those reviewers.

Let's hope so, although if I am honest it is very, very rare these days to not find that sort of review for almost any company you choose to research. I think in my time as an online shopper (many years now) Amazon is the only company I am yet to hear a bad review of (although love film is a different matter which is an amazon company) and in my experience their customer service is exemplary. I have also always had great experiences with Play but I hear many bad reviews of them, I guess the point I am making is if you base your purchasing desicion on review sites you may never end up buying anything.