Damaged Fridge - where do I stand?

nrishiraj

Hi

I've been so busy with renovating my house, bought a fridge on 5th May and we just managed to finish off the kitchen off now (we have issues with unreliable kitchen fitters). We didn't open the fridge since it got delivered, we opened it yesterday and noticed there is a scratch and dint on the front of the fridge.

Where do I stand here as a consumer? what are my rights? Curry's invoice says I must open it up and check within 3 days since delivery, but I didn't get time with opening it up, was so busy doing so many other stuff with renovating.

This dint is really bugging me, it's so visible on the front side of the fridge

Thanks for any help.

unholyangel

Have you contacted them?

There is something in unfair contracts guidance from OFT about time limit on claims.

Group 2(d): Time limits on claims
2.4.1 If a contract is to be considered balanced, each party's rights must remain
enforceable against the other for as long as is reasonably necessary, as
well as being adequate in other respects. The law allows a reasonable time
for making claims where the parties have not agreed a definite period
between themselves, and this may be regarded as the benchmark of
fairness.

2.4.2 The OFT is likely to object to a term that frees the supplier from his
responsibilities towards the consumer where the consumer does not make a
complaint immediately or within an unduly short period of time. This applies
particularly where:
(a) a time limit is so short that ordinary persons could easily miss it
through mere inadvertence, or because of circumstances outside
their control, and
(b) faults for which the supplier is responsible which could only become
apparent after a time limit has expired.

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.

If a term is found unfair, it is legally unenforceable.

bris

unholyangel wrote: »

Have you contacted them?

There is something in unfair contracts guidance from OFT about time limit on claims.



If a term is found unfair, it is legally unenforceable.

3 days may be unfair, but nearly 2 months...................

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

3 days may be unfair, but nearly 2 months...................

The only right they would lose would be the right to reject under non-acceptance.

bod1467

Indeed. So contact Currys and explain the issue. They MUST offer to repair, replace or refund (their choice basically) - unless they allege it was customer damage, but if they do then THEY must PROVE it, they can't shift the onus on to you to disprove it. (Up to 6 months from date of sale any fault is deemed to be inherent, and the retailer must prove otherwise. After 6 months the burden of proof shifts to the consumer).

tomtontom

unholyangel wrote: »

The only right they would lose would be the right to reject under non-acceptance.

But how does the OP prove they (or the kitchen fitters) did not do it? It would be fair for the retailer to argue the fault is not inherent given the time between delivery and discovery of the fault, so it would be for the OP to prove otherwise.

bod1467

No it wouldn't. It would be for Currys to prove that the OP/fitters DID cause the damage.

tomtontom

bod1467 wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would be for Currys to prove that the OP/fitters DID cause the damage.

I disagree - all the retailer needs to do is prove the item was not inherently faulty. It is not for them to establish who did cause the damage, just that it was not them.

bod1467

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

marliepanda

The only place that could sort it is court, Currys will say that its been damaged in the 2 months since the OP had it, and to be honest I cannot imagine a judge disagreeing.

In cases like this where there is zero proof either way of what happened, it would be an expensive and drawn out battle, with the OP in no way certain to win, as said above, 2 months is a long time to check something over. Busy or not, you can uncover and recover.

Neither side can provide conclusive proof, so court would be the place it would end up if Currys said no to a remedy.

Hintza

The terms of the contract with Currys is that you check items upon delivery (within 3 days) which should give people adequate time. The OP chose not do so.

The OP is on to plumbs now. Currys don't need to prove anything.