Wood flooring - Incorrect specification/insufficient quality

georgia_00

Hi all, I've been having a problem with an online retailer and will try to be as descriptive as possible to get the best advice...

I recently purchased 40m2 of engineered oak flooring for my living room. I asked for a premium grade floor that minimised 'knots' in the wood (some were still to be expected)

I was advised to purchase a premium product that was apparently 80% A and B grade wood, and 20% C grade. So knots would be present but minimised.

The floor arrived and looked largely as described, the correct quantity, colour, size, and the quality seemed in line with what was ordered.

A carpenter fitted the flooring and I returned later that day to see that the flooring was not quite what I had bought. There was a lot more knotting in the wood than expected. I looked at the product code at the side of the empty boxes and typed the code into the retailers website, which was described as Rustic Oak. Upon further research on their website Rustic oak is ABCD grade wood (with a much higher proportion of C and D grade wood) and is £5 or so per metre square cheaper.

I called the company to simply ask that I have a partial refund for the product that I recieved instead. I am happy to keep the floor as it has now been laid, but I want to pay the correct price for the materials they supplied.

Unbelievably, they are refusing to give any partial refund as apparently I 'accepted' the wood by fitting it.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

TIA

unholyangel

Soga states this for E&W

(3)In the case of breach of warranty of quality such loss is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had if they had fulfilled the warranty.

Scottish law wording is more clear imo, but the same holds true for english law also I believe:

(2)Where the seller’s breach consists of the delivery of goods which are not of the quality required by the contract and the buyer retains the goods, such loss as aforesaid is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had if they had fulfilled the contract.

The simple fact is, they havent supplied what was agreed so are in breach of contract. Soga gives repair, replace, refund or reduction in price as remedies for breaches in consumer cases.

OFT's unfair contract terms guidance states the following:

2.1.1 Any business selling goods to consumers is legally bound to accept certain
implied obligations, whatever the contract says. These are the consumer's
'statutory rights'. Goods must match the description given to them, and be
of satisfactory quality and fit for their purposes. Contract terms which
deny consumers the right to full compensation where goods are
misdescribed or defective are liable to be considered unfair under the
Regulations, and are void and unenforceable under other legislation.

2.1.2 As well as potentially being unfair under the Regulations, the use of such
disclaimers is liable to mislead consumers about their statutory rights. As
such, it can give rise to enforcement action as an unfair commercial
practice (see above, page 11).
2.1.3 See Group 1 for the OFT's objections to disclaimers generally. Note that
these apply to any term, whatever the form of words used, or the legal
mechanism involved, which has the object or effect of protecting the
supplier from claims for redress for defective or misdescribed goods. It is
also important to note that a statement that statutory rights are not
affected, without explanation, cannot make such a term acceptable to the
OFT.
2.1.4 A variety of different types of wording can have the effect of excluding
liability for unsatisfactory goods. For example, (snipped a few examples out)

• Terms which end rights to redress after the consumer has dealt with
the goods in a particular way.
Even where goods have been legally 'accepted', for example, by being
used repeatedly or modified in some way, the supplier remains liable to provide redress if they subsequently prove to have been defective
when sold.

neilmcl

I would have thought that a flooring described as "rustic oak" was supposed to have a rustic character with variations of grain and colour including knots.

Who did you get the flooring from?

frugal_mike

neilmcl wrote: »

I would have thought that a flooring described as "rustic oak" was supposed to have a rustic character with variations of grain and colour including knots.

Who did you get the flooring from?

Rustic Oak is the inferior quality flooring that was delivered by mistake. I don't think OP named the higher quality one.

OP, how did you pay for the flooring? If it was on Credit Card or other for of credit linked directly to the purchase then you can try a Section 75 claim as the card provider are jointly and severally liable for the contract.

Hintza

took me months to find decent rustic engineered flooring, I wanted the more knots the better it gives it much more character (I found the less knotty flooring a bit bland) and if you get a ding or a scrape it is not so obvious.

georgia_00

Thanks for the responses so far.

Is it ok to name the company online? I don't want to do anything to jeopardise the situation.

I paid over the phone with a debit card so cannot go down that route.

Rustic oak is what the company calls the floor they sent me which turns out to be a different grade of wood I paid for. I can't remember the name they gave the product I was supposed to receive.

The floor is ok, its not what i wanted, but I am happy to keep it. I think I am being more than fair in asking that they just refund the difference in price between the 2 products.

They have basically refused via email to do anything so I'm not sure how to proceed. I sent another email asking it to be forwarded to a manager/director. The reply said the MD stands by the decision!

Hintza

Try a letter before action and if that doesn't work then you can decide whether to let it drop or not.

From what I gather their own website had the product code £5/m2 cheaper than what you ordered so I would think you have a case. What product code is on the invoice?