How long do you legally have to check delivered goods?

unholyangel

InsideInsurance wrote: »

As I say, it isnt the original place I saw it. It was on the CAB, OFT, TS, Which? Type site and related to SOGA - they just happen to have used the same example of a mower



Nor would I, the original source I saw it on didnt mention 30 days.

So basically you've linked something that isn't in any way relevant to what you said about a few days? Help me out here, I'm confused.

Which says 3 to 4 weeks you can usually get a refund, cab says reasonable time and gives an example saying if it was goods you use everyday you might only have a week, OFT is the author of the document I referenced above and they say reasonable time only, TS are the same.

I'd doubt the credibility of any site that would issue "guidance" stating you only have a few days generally.

18ME

Thanks for all your advice.

Do you think my email to B&Q has a chance of getting anything sorted with them?

bris

18ME wrote: »

Thanks for all your advice.

Do you think my email to B&Q has a chance of getting anything sorted with them?

Possibly but I wouldn't hold my breath, a few days, a few weeks, but 5 months, doubtful, especially since you already had one replaced they would want to know why you didn't notice the other one.

bod1467

Bear in mind ... just because you've waited too long (in their view) to notify them of a fault doesn't mean you've waived your rights to a remedy; it just means you've lost an automatic remedy of your choice. B&Q are still liable to provide a remedy (repair, replace, refund), but it is now effectively their choice.

Also, if it is more than 6 months since receipt of the goods then they may request you to obtain a report to prove that the fault was due to poor workmanship or delivery issues. (Before 6 months any faults are assumed to be inherent and the retailer must prove otherwise).

This is all covered in the linked I provided previously.

wealdroam

OP, from your original post it sound like the only damage is to one pane of glass. Is that right?

If so, it may be more expedient to get a replacement piece of glass locally.

Edited to add:
That email you have sent to B&Q seems to indicate that the doors were laid flat in your garage for several months.
That is not a good way to store doors... especially glazed doors.

As you have now told B&Q this, I would expect them to reply stating that the damage was caused after delivery.

swingaloo

I will be amazed if you get the door replaced to be honest.

I used to work for the BQ call centre and there are literally dozens of people requesting replacement items many weeks after delievery.
I do know that in most of the cases the assumption is that it has happened after delivery especially when products are stored.

If a door is warped then it is put down to the customer storing on its end instead of flat. Glass doors being broken is put down to other doors being stored on top of them.

Im not saying for one moment that your complaint isnt genuine its just that so long after delivery i think its a long shot that they will replace foc.

I think it will also not go in your favour that you had one door replaced as that makes it look as if you had insprected the doors on delivery.

You may be lucky but if I was still the supervisor the most I have to say that the most I would offer you would be a discount aginst a new one.

swingaloo

bod1467 wrote: »

Bear in mind ... just because you've waited too long (in their view) to notify them of a fault doesn't mean you've waived your rights to a remedy; it just means you've lost an automatic remedy of your choice. B&Q are still liable to provide a remedy (repair, replace, refund), but it is now effectively their choice.

Also, if it is more than 6 months since receipt of the goods then they may request you to obtain a report to prove that the fault was due to poor workmanship or delivery issues. (Before 6 months any faults are assumed to be inherent and the retailer must prove otherwise).

This is all covered in the linked I provided previously.

But this isnt a 'manufacturing fault' Its damage caused either by the delievry person or since the delivery.

18ME

The doors were stored flat with the 2 glazed doors on top as recommended by the chippy. Although the doors were ordered on the 18th Feb on a next day delivery, we didn't actually receive them until at least a month later as they said they were out of stock after we chased them. When we did receive them the only door that we rejected at the time which wasn't a glazed door was clearly damaged but the rest looked to be ok but without taking all the outer brown cardboard off then taking the inside packing off the doors you can't see what the door is actually like inside. We assumed they would all be intact as they all were but didn't expect that one the glazed doors which has 4 glass panels would be smashed inside as we didn't here any broken glass and all the packaging was intact. If we had all the doors delivered when we ordered them then we would have had them fitted pretty much straight away and obviously seen the broken pane but as we had to wait until B&Q had delivered all the doors which was May then we had to wait for the chippy to fit us in.

Unfortunately each pane looks like its inserted when the oak frame is attached around it as there are no beading.

bigheadxx

I got a refund on a bath that I bought from B & Q that was stored for three months. Its not easy. Best to write a letter to the bottom level first and then ramp it up as you go through the levels to the top.

You can fill in a County Court claim without filing it as a final warning to them, worked for me.

wealdroam

18ME wrote: »

If we had all the doors delivered when we ordered them then we would have had them fitted pretty much straight away and obviously seen the broken pane but as we had to wait until B&Q had delivered all the doors which was May then we had to wait for the chippy to fit us in.

Ah... new information.

That is just the sort of information that you should have supplied to B&Q in your email. It fairly explains to B&Q that the apparently excessive delay before discovering the damage is substantially due to their initial delivery delays.