Rights about damaged goods delivered.

N3il

My mum bought a cooker/hob/microwave from homebase which was delivered on the 25th march.

The kitchen fitter opened the packaging today to find parts damaged, and homebase are saying that because she didn't check within the 7 days since it was delivered that its basically her problem.

Does anyone know if there is any recourse here for her or does she just have to grin and bear it?

Thanks

bod1467

Whilst they may say the goods are deemed "accepted" after that period of time (so she maybe can't reject them for a refund), Homebase still have SOGA obligations ... the goods do not conform to contract and so they must provide a remedy (repair, replace, refund - their choice effectively).

And as it is less than 6 months since purchase then it is for them to prove any fault was caused by the user - they cannot just reject any claim outright.

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

N3il

I thought it sounded way too harsh to be true. Many thanks for the quick response.

unholyangel

Bod is correct in what he's said however personally I'd be arguing acceptance hasnt occurred.

SoGA gives you a "reasonable time" to inspect goods to assess whether they conform to contract or not. You cannot contract out of this right by agreement, waiver or otherwise.

Given its only been 9 days, I think its entirely within the realms of possibility that acceptance has not occurred.

There were several examples in OFT's unfair contract annexes that were 7 days and changed to "notify within a reasonable time" but this one is the most relevant since it concerns goods ordered. Perhaps try directing the company to the page I'm about to link:

Original term
Written notice of any defect in the goods when delivered shall be served
upon the company within 7 days of delivery. The Customer shall be
deemed to have accepted the goods 7 days after delivery.
Action taken
New term: The Customer is asked to examine the goods as soon as
reasonably possible after delivery and notify the Company of any fault or
damage as soon as reasonably possible.

Found here:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311cons-annexes.pdf

And also from OFT's unfair contract terms guidance:

2.4.3 Prompt notification of complaints is desirable because it encourages
successful resolution and is therefore to be encouraged. But taking away all
rights to redress is liable to be considered an over-severe sanction for this
purpose. Where goods are supplied, use of such a term is legally incapable
of producing that effect and may amount to an offence, because it serves
to restrict the consumer's statutory rights – see paragraph 2.1.1.

2.4.4 Any fault found in goods within six months of the date of sale is assumed to
be the supplier's responsibility unless he can prove otherwise. It is therefore
particularly misleading for contract terms to seek to exclude or limit the
consumer's right to redress for faulty goods during the first six months
after purchase. As noted above (page 11) the use of misleading terms may
give rise to enforcement action as an unfair commercial practice.