Trampoline from trampoline-warehouse.co.uk

markish99

I purchased a Kanga trampoline from trampoline-warehouse.co.uk in July 2012 for just under £400 to replace a £150 B&Q model that had run out of life after 8 years.

The delivery was swift, upon unpacking the trampoline, we discovered that the company logo was stencilled on the trampoline itself back to front - i.e. mirrored.

Upon attempting to assemble it, the instructions were unclear as to which way the tubes be joined and we had to telephone the company for clarification.

It was noted during assembly that a few threads of the material on the trampoline were sticking out in a number of places and also several clips on the safety net broke. I telephoned the company and emailed them images of the mirrored logo, the broken clips on the net and the 'snagged' threads on the trampoline. I questioned the authenticity of the product (my neighbour has one and suggested this was a Chinese knock off) and was assured it was genuine and they duly sent out a replacement net.

Whenever the trampoline is not in use, it has a cover on it (unlike the previous considerably cheaper model that lasted 8 years) because of how much it has cost - it is looked after.

During May this year when it was first used, we noticed that the surrounding mat that covers the springs was disintegrating and was unsafe. I duly emailed Trampoline Warehouse and they offered to sell me a replacement mat, but refused to replace it free of charge.

Their response is below:

"Hello

If a customer feels that goods are not of a satisfactory quality then it is their responsibility to address the issue at the time of receipt of the order, or within 30 days of that. The trampoline has been with you for 20 months and, beyond the original issue with the safety net which was resolved, we have not heard from you.

It is your opinion that the goods have deteriorated before one would reasonably expect as this is not a time period that can be measured.

The sales of goods act states that after a product has been in a customers possession for more than 6 months it is their responsibility to provide irrefutable proof that the failure of the product is down to a manufacturing error. Usually this means having the item inspected and a report sent to the company clearly detailing where the fault lies.

With an item that has been left outside for 20 months and subjected to a number of different weather conditions this can be difficult to do. Which is why we say that any fault reported within 12 months (double the required amount of time) will be investigated by the company and resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

All of these factors considered we will not be replacing the padding free of charge.

Kind Regards

James"

I am really not happy with this. This is an expensive trampoline and has lasted nowhere near as long as its £150 predecessor, which was never covered when not used and survived being dismantled and reassembled at a new address.

I feel that this should be replaced free of charge, any advice or thoughts gratefully received.

And yes - I know I should have done something about this 3 months ago!

tomtontom

They are largely correct, it is for you to prove the item is inherently faulty. The only point I would disagree with is the standard of proof - you only need to prove on the balance of probabilities.

Have you contacted the manufacturer to see if they can help? How much is the replacement part?

markish99

Hi and thanks for your response and the information.

I have tried finding the manufacturer but all of my searches have proved fruitless. I will try again.

I have corrected my original post as they didn't offer a cost price replacement, on re-reading their email, they offered to sell me another and price wasn't mentioned.