Tiledealer.co.uk won't replace/refund broken tiles

Grimbal

I would be grateful for some advice please.

I received a pallet load (500kg) of large porcelain floor tiles on Tuesday, I signed to say I had received them. On Thursday, when the builders unpacked the tiles, one entire box of tiles was cracked - all in the same orientation, so obviously a delivery/stacking problem

Tile dealer are denying any responsibility with this - they said that I signed for items received in good condition at the time of delivery, and two days later is too late to claim.

My contention is that I physically couldn't unpack these heavy tiles & inspect them & that a 48hr window to inform them of a breakage is reasonable

where do I stand please ?

Hintza

I would say you fight them, LBA etc if they won't play ball.

lovinituk

You might want to quote the Sale of Goods Act to them. This guide specifically states...

"For items being delivered, it is important for retailers to know
that signing a delivery note is not acceptance as it does not
allow the customer a reasonable opportunity to inspect the
goods and identify any problems or faults"

Online page 9 (Guide page 18) - http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sites/default/files/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf

bris

But the op didn't inspect them, instead the builders could have dropped a box and the OP can't say for sure they didn't.

Going to court and saying he inspected them and found one box faulty would be perjury.

bod1467

"reasonable opportunity" ... it would depend on whether a judge thought 48 hours was a reasonable time in which to inspect the whole consignment. I'd suggest not, so OP would likely win.

Of course small claims is always a lottery. But an LBA will often work for intransigent suppliers ... they'd rather not take the risk.

Grimbal

bris wrote: »

But the op didn't inspect them, instead the builders could have dropped a box and the OP can't say for sure they didn't.

Going to court and saying he inspected them and found one box faulty would be perjury.

They could have yes, but this was the last box off the pallet & they're all broken in the same orientation, as if the box has flexed under the weight of the other tiles.

Oh, and it's only perjury if you're lying surely? My complaint really is against the highly unreasonable assumption of acceptance that the tiles were delivered in good condition

Grimbal

bod1467 wrote: »

"reasonable opportunity" ... it would depend on whether a judge thought 48 hours was a reasonable time in which to inspect the whole consignment. I'd suggest not, so OP would likely win.

Of course small claims is always a lottery. But an LBA will often work for intransigent suppliers ... they'd rather not take the risk.

the 48hrs is the time I got back to them in - it was lucky that the builders were here to unload the tiles from the pallet. The tile dealers actually stated to me on the phone today that they give 15 minutes in which to inspect the tiles !!!

500kg of tiles, unpacked & inspected in 15 minutes ?! :eek:

Grimbal

lovinituk wrote: »

You might want to quote the Sale of Goods Act to them. This guide specifically states...

"For items being delivered, it is important for retailers to know
that signing a delivery note is not acceptance as it does not
allow the customer a reasonable opportunity to inspect the
goods and identify any problems or faults"

Online page 9 (Guide page 18) - http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sites/default/files/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf

thanks for this - that is very very useful to know. I've just emailed them, mentioning the points raised there and suggesting a pro rata refund if they dont want to send a replacement

unholyangel

You may also want to use the following with them:

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.


2.4.5 A statement that statutory rights are unaffected, without explanation, will
not make such a term acceptable to the OFT– see paragraph 1.5. A better approach is to insist on prompt notification in such a way as not to restrict
consumers' legal rights. One way to do this is to require notification of a
complaint within a 'reasonable' time of (or promptly after) discovery of a
problem.


2.4.6 There is similarly no objection to a term warning consumers of the need to
check to the best of their ability for any defects or discrepancies at the
earliest opportunity, and take prompt action as soon as they become aware
of any problem. Concerns do not arise so long as there is no suggestion
that the supplier disclaims liability for problems which consumers fail to
notice.

Below is a list of terms companies have had that OFT have made them change/delete because they were in breach of the above:

Original term
… the Customer shall … give Maples written notice of such loss or
damage with reasonable particulars thereof within 3 days of receipt of the
Goods.
Action taken
New term: … You must tell us about any fault or damage as soon as is
reasonably possible.


Original term
Any claim by the Purchaser for compensation for damage done by the
Company must be made in writing to reach the Company within seven
days of such damage occurring in default of which the Company will
accept no liability therefore.
Action taken
New term: Any claim by the Purchaser for compensation for damage
caused by the Company must be notified to the Company as soon as
practicable after the damage is discovered.


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

Grimbal

unholyangel wrote: »

You may also want to use the following with them:



Below is a list of terms companies have had that OFT have made them change/delete because they were in breach of the above:

thankyou, there area couple of things of particular relevance to me here (even though the OFT closed in April this year unfortunately), so again very useful. I'll report back on their decision !

harrys_dad

I have just bought £500 worth of porcelain floor tiles for my kitchen from my local tile dealer. I considered buying from the net, but because of prospective issues like the one for the OP decided against it. Yes I could have saved £50 (once delivery costs were factored in) but a 10% saving is not worth the possible aggravation. I used the internet price to get a discount, but did not expect it to be matched.

What % saving would I consider necessary to take the risk? Not sure, but 10% is too low.