Damaged Fridge - where do I stand?

nrishiraj

I just called Currys and they contacted Boshe.

Bad news: that they can't exchange the fridge.

Good news: that they can change the upper door which is where the damage is.

This is even better because it means we don't need to re-package it for collection and if they exchanged it, we wouldn't have a fridge between the days the new one was getting delivered.

I'm happy with the outcome

Thanks for your all replies.

:j

Hintza

nrishiraj wrote: »

I just called Currys and they contacted Boshe.

Bad news: that they can't exchange the fridge.

Good news: that they can change the upper door which is where the damage is.

This is even better because it means we don't need to re-package it for collection and if they exchanged it, we wouldn't have a fridge between the days the new one was getting delivered.

I'm happy with the outcome

Thanks for your all replies.

:j

Good result.

rustyboy21

A result that an earlier post by someone, to tell the OP to contact the retailer/manufacturer to see if anything can be done, would have saved all the difference of opinion on here.


Not all retailers are out to shaft you, things can be done to rectify a fault to satisfaction, without having to harp on about legal rights !


What has happened these days of speaking politely to someone and asking if anything can be done? Works wonder 99% of the time.

ThumbRemote

I know this has been resolved, but just to pick up on a couple of things anyway.

marliepanda wrote: »

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.

It would not be an expensive and drawn out battle in court. It would use the small claims court, just like any other claim.

When it came to court, OP could produce proof from the kitchen fitter of the dates the kitchen was installed. Together with the fitter stating that the fridge was damaged when they unpacked it, a judge would be likely to agree. After all, the retailer cannot offer any evidence to the contrary so 'on the balance of probabilities' the OP wins.

tomtontom wrote: »

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.

I'm intrigued as to how a retailer could prove that damage was not caused by them (or their delivery agents). Surely the only evidence would be photographs of the fridge being unwrapped, which they don't have.

Given this, the only way they could show that it wasn't damaged by them is to show how that it was damaged by someone else.

unholyangel

rustyboy21 wrote: »

A result that an earlier post by someone, to tell the OP to contact the retailer/manufacturer to see if anything can be done, would have saved all the difference of opinion on here.
.

You mean such as post number 2 where I asked:

unholyangel wrote: »

Have you contacted them?

societys_child

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I know this has been resolved, but just to pick up on a couple of things anyway.




It would not be an expensive and drawn out battle in court. It would use the small claims court, just like any other claim.

When it came to court, OP could produce proof from the kitchen fitter of the dates the kitchen was installed. Together with the fitter stating that the fridge was damaged when they unpacked it, a judge would be likely to agree. After all, the retailer cannot offer any evidence to the contrary so 'on the balance of probabilities' the OP wins.




I'm intrigued as to how a retailer could prove that damage was not caused by them (or their delivery agents). Surely the only evidence would be photographs of the fridge being unwrapped, which they don't have.

Given this, the only way they could show that it wasn't damaged by them is to show how that it was damaged by someone else.

As the fridge had been there almost 2 months with all the work going on, you could also say the damage was caused after delivery . . "on the balance of probabilities"

clarkey3262

Hintza wrote: »

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.

I agree with the 3 days being a fair time to check an item, it isn't difficult to look over an item in that time.

I disagree with Currys not needing to prove anything, they are required by law (sales of good act etc) to prove it wasn't inherently faulty and caused by misuse or some other act that is contrary to the normal use of the item or normal wear and tear within the first 6 months after purchase.

OlliesDad

clarkey3262 wrote: »

I agree with the 3 days being a fair time to check an item, it isn't difficult to look over an item in that time.

I disagree with Currys not needing to prove anything, they are required by law (sales of good act etc) to prove it wasn't inherently faulty and caused by misuse or some other act that is contrary to the normal use of the item or normal wear and tear within the first 6 months after purchase.

This has come up before, and no conclusion was ever reached (I suspect a court would have to decide).

IMO, a damaged unit can be rejected by a customer or they can decide to keep it. After the acceptance period, the customer does not have the right to return the unit as it has been accepted in the condition it has arrived in. I'm not sure a dent on a door could ever be an inherent fault - it is misuse (although it is unclear who the culprit of the misuse is).

Using the same logic, would it be fair if I dropped a TV after owning it for 5 months and 29 days and demand a repair - after all, the supplier couldn't prove it was me who dropped it?

unholyangel

SoGA doesnt actually make any reference to inherent faults. Because obviously, something being misdescribed doesnt mean it was faulty, but it still doesnt conform to contract (which I believe is the phrasing SoGA uses).

The 3 day limit wouldnt stand up in court because by law you have a reasonable time to assess the goods to see whether they conform to contract - and you cannot lose this right by agreement, waiver or otherwise (which is what their 3 day clause is). Terms which seek to deprive consumers of their rights (rather than just upsetting the balance) are not just unfair, but also can amount to a criminal offence.

With the new consumer rights bill, this should be clearer given they were going to give 30 days as standard to reject under non-acceptance - meaning there should be no doubt that a 3 day clause is unfair/legally unenforceable.

At present, there is a list of terms breaching this regulation in the unfair terms annexes - some of which gave 7 days and were still found to be unfair.

I'm not saying the company should just take peoples words for it. But they shouldnt disclaim all liability if complaints are not made within a short period of time.