Damaged goods

carolyng

I purchased a 600 white Gloss Vanity and Basin Unit for a bathroom at the cost of £210, from a firm in Chadderton on the 10th January 2012. The item was collected from a nearby warehouse by myself and husband. Warehouse men placed the pre-assembled boxed unit into the car upright. We went home and placed the item into the garage until the bathroom was ready for its installation. On opening of the box in the garage on the 27th January my husband discovered damage to the top front corner and innershelf, damaged consistant with being caused from being dropped from a height. My husband immediately contacted the seller via telephone, who requested photographs to be taken of the damage and sent via e-mail. I received a telephone call on the 28th saying that they would not replace the unit because they cannot verify when the damage was done, and because we had had the unit for two weeks the only thing they would offer was to purchase an additional unit at cost price( as yet undetermined cost). They did comment if we had reported the damage within a" Reasonable Length of Time," within 48 hours they would have replaced it without cost, ( even without verifiying time of damage!)
Can anyone advise, I have purchased products from this company in the past and have not had the misfortune of having any problems with their products or advice, therefore believing we have purchased from a reputable seller.:(
Thanks in advance for any advice

copa_feela

They do have a good point - as you had the item for two weeks, how do they know the damage was caused before you received it?

somethingcorporate

Under the SOGA it is up to the company to prove that the damage / faults were not there at the time of purchase and not up to the OP. Although not looking at the items for a couple of weeks does make their case considerably weaker.

zorber

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Under the SOGA it is up to the company to prove that the damage / faults were not there at the time of purchase and not up to the OP. Although not looking at the items for a couple of weeks does make their case considerably weaker.

By not reporting the damage straight away (i realise that they didnt know it was done) that have acted in such a manner that it is deemed that they have acepted the goods. To report a fault like damage a resonable period of time is very short. after a few days it could be assumed that the customer has damaged the item by moving it.

This is why when items are delivered by a company they are checked and signed for as perfect by the customer. I dont believe you are allowed to write unchecked on documents now as its your responsibility to check at the time. Same when collecting you should check all is in good condition before you take away.

This is very difficult for both parties. Good Luck

Gleeful

zorber wrote: »

By not reporting the damage straight away (i realise that they didnt know it was done) that have acted in such a manner that it is deemed that they have acepted the goods. To report a fault like damage a resonable period of time is very short. after a few days it could be assumed that the customer has damaged the item by moving it.

This is why when items are delivered by a company they are checked and signed for as perfect by the customer. I dont believe you are allowed to write unchecked on documents now as its your responsibility to check at the time. Same when collecting you should check all is in good condition before you take away.

This is very difficult for both parties. Good Luck

Just out of interest, is there a law that would dictate this 'reasonable amount of time?'

arcon5

Gleeful wrote: »

Just out of interest, is there a law that would dictate this 'reasonable amount of time?'

'Reasonable' cannot be something determined by law. There is to many factors to consider. You are by law considered to have accepted the goods after 'reasonable' time -- whether 2 weeks to report damaged goods in reasonable or not is subjective.

Although I understand and accept the points the company make, I can't help but feel the would win in the county court unless the company could demonstrate the damage was caused by op.

arcon5

zorber wrote: »

This is why when items are delivered by a company they are checked and signed for as perfect by the customer. I dont believe you are allowed to write unchecked on documents now as its your responsibility to check at the time. Same when collecting you should check all is in good condition before you take away.

I don't think a signed delivery sheet would carry much weight in court (in the retailers favour), expecially if for example damage was reported within 24hrs.

Plus, most couriers are asking you to sign to confirm delivery of the parcel rather than safe arrival of goods.

Not sure why you can't write 'unchecked' though.... you'd simply refuse to sign & reject delivery (although thinking back a short while some posters feel it's acceptable to take delivery of a parcel, close the door and refuse to sign).

Gleeful

arcon5 wrote: »

'Reasonable' cannot be something determined by law. There is to many factors to consider. You are by law considered to have accepted the goods after 'reasonable' time -- whether 2 weeks to report damaged goods in reasonable or not is subjective.

Although I understand and accept the points the company make, I can't help but feel the would win in the county court unless the company could demonstrate the damage was caused by op.

I was just wondering if, say, for instance, someone had a carpet laid and took 3 weeks to report visible faults with it?

arcon5

Gleeful wrote: »

I was just wondering if, say, for instance, someone had a carpet laid and took 3 weeks to report visible faults with it?

IMO in this example you would have a weak case. I suppose it would come down to how obvious the fault is. If in your example the damage to a carpet is cosmetic, then it should be easy to find on inspection so you could I suppose be deemed to have accepted this after 3 weeks. If though the fault is something that developes over the 3 weeks (therefore not an obvious fault to spot) you could have a valid case for a remedy.