Refund after 12 months

tomtontom

And safety is another important feature of this hutch. We've used thick heavy duty metal wire which is inlaid into the wooden frame. This will prevent a fox or determined dog from simply pushing in on the wire and gaining access.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140326212114/http://www.rabbit-hutches.co.uk/balmoral-rabbit-hutch.htm

I disagree with your interpretation, it states a fox will not be able to get in from pushing on the wire, not that it will not be able to get in at all.

Esqui

Discussions about wording notwithstanding, the seller has acknowledged that the hutch did not conform to contract, and the offer of a replacement is in line with the Sale of Goods Act.


Even if it doesn't make a huge amount of sense given that you no longer need it. I suppose you could always sell the new one?

DevCoder

No, the "and" concatenates the two conditions or outcomes together.

So it will prevent a fox or dog from simply pushing in on the wire (1st condition met) and thus as a result of only the first condition, prevent a fox from gaining access (2nd condition met based on first).

Can you prove that
1. It was a fox or "determined dog"
2. That the fox simply pushed on the wire to gain access
3. That , even so, the fox or "determined dog" gained access and that it just didn't create enough space for the rabbit to escape.

I know it would be on the balance or probabilities, but I think you are onto a loser here. You could of course get an expert in hutch design to inspect it and state whether the construction method is inherently faulty.

tomtontom

Esqui wrote: »

Discussions about wording notwithstanding, the seller has acknowledged that the hutch did not conform to contract, and the offer of a replacement is in line with the Sale of Goods Act.


Even if it doesn't make a huge amount of sense given that you no longer need it. I suppose you could always sell the new one?

Have they, or have they offered a goodwill gesture? It is not clear what wording was used.

CrikeyBananas

tomtontom wrote: »

I disagree with your interpretation, it states a fox will not be able to get in from pushing on the wire, not that it will not be able to get in at all.

I'm inclined to agree with the above. I think it would be impossible to guarantee a hutch to be fox-proof. In my case, it wasn't even the wire that the fox got in through - it actually tore down part of the wooden door.

Just wanted to add that I realise that you have no use for a hutch now, but perhaps the company thought you may have been housing another rabbit or wished to get another one, so in that respect I thought their offer generous. I never got another guinea pig as, perhaps like you, I would feel desperately sad and guilty should another one meet the same fate.

djmsemcgrath

Lets put wording to one side to a minute.
Wouldn't making a hutch secure from foxes be reasonably assumed by a customer buying an outdoor hutch? If I buy a fridge (which has a principal function of keeping food cold), but I can't open the door, that would be considered faulty. This would be despite the product pages not mentioning anything about functioning doors. Some things are just assumed.

An outdoor hutch providing safety and security from animals was assumed by me to come as standard. Do people think that is an unreasonable assumption?

I understand Esqui's comment about a replacement being offered under the Sale of Goods Act, but surely some products don't make sense to be replaced? Some products are so specific that if they break, and destroy the sole reason for having the product in the first place, then a replacement shouldn't be the only outcome of a complaint?

djmsemcgrath

tomtontom wrote: »

Have they, or have they offered a goodwill gesture? It is not clear what wording was used.

Their response was:

Thank you for your photos. We shall pass these on to the factory to
see if something constructive can be attained from them.

As mentioned previously we are very sorry for your experience however
we do not accept that after 12 months of continual use in which you
admitted "The hutch has been brilliant up until now” you can honestly
expect a refund from us.

Our offer to replace the part that was damaged and our gesture of
goodwill we believe is fair and reasonable and to expect a refund on a
product that you have happily used for 12 months is not in my humble
opinion.

I believe that our products are made to a higher standard than most
other similar looking hutches being offered in the same price range.
And the fact that for the last 4 years, with a few thousand hutches of
these hutches being used daily throughout the U.K without a single
report of a similar incident to yours indicates to me that they are
fit for purpose.

There could be several factors that may have influenced the 'break in'
however this serves no purpose labouring these points at this stage.

We are happy to send you a replacement part so you would be able to
either reuse your hutch or enable you to sell it but I’m afraid a
refund is not something we are prepared to entertain.

unholyangel

Worth to note the measurements and info tab also has this (on both current and cached version)

There is always the possibility that some rabbits and other rodents may chew parts of your hutch. Please note that this is out of our control and the onus is on you to take the necessary precautions to prevent or lessen the chance of them chewing parts of your hutch. Our hutches are not chew proof and we are not liable for any damage caused by your pet chewing or gnawing the product.

tomtontom

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

Lets put wording to one side to a minute.
Wouldn't making a hutch secure from foxes be reasonably assumed by a customer buying an outdoor hutch? If I buy a fridge (which has a principal function of keeping food cold), but I can't open the door, that would be considered faulty. This would be despite the product pages not mentioning anything about functioning doors. Some things are just assumed.

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a truly fox proof hutch. If you compare it to a house door you expect them to keep you safe, but sadly sometimes burglars do still get in.

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

Their response was:

Thank you for your photos. We shall pass these on to the factory to
see if something constructive can be attained from them.

As mentioned previously we are very sorry for your experience however
we do not accept that after 12 months of continual use in which you
admitted "The hutch has been brilliant up until now” you can honestly
expect a refund from us.

Our offer to replace the part that was damaged and our gesture of
goodwill we believe is fair and reasonable and to expect a refund on a
product that you have happily used for 12 months is not in my humble
opinion.

I believe that our products are made to a higher standard than most
other similar looking hutches being offered in the same price range.
And the fact that for the last 4 years, with a few thousand hutches of
these hutches being used daily throughout the U.K without a single
report of a similar incident to yours indicates to me that they are
fit for purpose.

There could be several factors that may have influenced the 'break in'
however this serves no purpose labouring these points at this stage.

We are happy to send you a replacement part so you would be able to
either reuse your hutch or enable you to sell it but I’m afraid a
refund is not something we are prepared to entertain.

Thank you for that - it is clear that they are offering a goodwill gesture and not accepting fault.

djmsemcgrath

It is very strange that as soon as I emailed my complaint, they updated their website to remove that wording, isn't it?