damaged but not inspected and signed for

eskimo26

Sent the e-mail making our position clear:

There is of course no reason for the driver to back track now that he has got away with it but I think most of you have met my Mother and can attest to her honesty on a personal level, though I'm aware that does not help in this case since it is as you said one persons word against another.

As I mentioned previously my understanding is that the signature on the delivery pod does not by law mitigate our rights in any way to inspect the goods and reject them if they do not conform to contract, which we have done.

At this point we are waiting for a resolution by yourselves that concludes in the successful completion of the contract, I must state categorically that having rejected the goods under the The Sale of Goods Act 1979 we cannot be held liable for any costs that arise from this process, this would include your insurance rejecting the claim.

Please keep us posted on the progress of the order for the replacement tiles.

Kind Regards...

hollydays

Did you find out from your mother how they got this heavy pallet off the vehicle?

eskimo26

hollydays wrote: »

Did you find out from your mother how they got this heavy pallet off the vehicle?

She's saying it was a wheeled contraction that slipped under the pallet but claims it was only half in.

TILES OF WISDOM in TEDDINGTON also forwarded our details to the delivery company despite being told that they have nothing to do with us and the contract exists between themselves only!

eskimo26

*UPDATE*

Well we went to the store TILES OF WISDOM in TEDDINGTON to collect the replacement tiles, drop off the broken tiles and pay the difference between the two [we made some changes with the replacement tiles that took the price up].

Somehow we got our wires crossed, they were expecting us to pay for the whole cost of the replacement tiles until their insurance came through.

I told them we weren't liable for this under consumer law [remember we rejected them under the sales of goods act]. We had some wrangling in which she was going on about her terms and conditions.

I told her any company terms and conditions that contradict British consumer law are irrelevant. [She was absolutely amazed by this and looked at me like i'd grown horns, she was actually incredulous].

Anyway after some wrangling we said we would unload the replacement tiles and collect them again when their insurance claim came through but we where not willing or liable to pay what they were asking.

In the end though she got cross and said she didn't want them anymore and we left with the tiles.

All in all a complete lack of knowledge of basic consumer law.

Are they breaking the law when they ask consumers to pay until there insurance comes through or is only breaking the law if the items are rejected under the Sales of Goods act?

unholyangel

Group 18(b): Transferring inappropriate risks to consumers
18.2.1 A contract may be considered unbalanced if it contains a term the supplier
is better able to bear. A risk lies more appropriately with the supplier if:
• it is within their control
• it is a risk the consumer cannot be expected to know about, or
• the supplier can insure against it more cheaply than the consumer.

18.2.2 Particular suspicion falls on any term which makes the consumer bear a risk
that the supplier could remove or at least reduce by taking reasonable care
– for example, of damage to equipment that he himself operates, or the risk
of encountering foreseeable structural problems in installation work. Such a
term effectively allows him to be negligent with impunity. As such, it is
open to the objections to exclusion clauses which are set out under Groups
1 and 2.

18.2.7 Indemnities against risk. Terms under which the supplier must be
'indemnified' for costs which could arise through no fault of the consumer's
are open to comparable objections, particularly where the supplier could
himself be at fault. The word 'indemnify' itself is legal jargon which, if
understood at all, is liable to be taken as a threat to pass on legal and other
costs incurred without regard to reasonableness. Clearer and fairer wording
to replace legal jargon of this kind is illustrated in Group 19(b) of Annexe A.

Its covered by unfair terms as above. The risk was entirely within their control and the damage could have been avoided had reasonable care been exercised. It is therefore they who are liable. Their contract with their insurers has zero impact on their liability to you.

Also the SoGA specifically states:

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

eskimo26

unholyangel wrote: »

Its covered by unfair terms as above. The risk was entirely within their control and the damage could have been avoided had reasonable care been exercised. It is therefore they who are liable. Their contract with their insurers has zero impact on their liability to you.

Also the SoGA specifically states:

Actually as far as I know her terms weren't related to that they were related to requiring two people to be at home when the delivery was made and I never remember actually being presented with any written terms either.

For some bizarre reason she just expects customers to foot the bill and get refunded when insurance comes through. She even said this is the way they've done it previously whenever this has occurred!

I'm actually amazed that an established company like Tiles of Wisdom can be so ignorant of basic consumer law.

It makes me want to avoid small family run businesses, they are amazing for customer services right up until you hit a consumer rights issue then it's generally an awkward, uphill struggle.

Employees from companies also tend to be more professional when disputes arise, possibly because it goes to the Manager who has training in basic consumer law.

This was a really terrible experience. We didn't even get a chance to settle the bill for the extra money we owed on the changed order.

Will have to email to ask for the balance and send a check which is a bit a awkward considering how belligerent she was.

unholyangel

eskimo26 wrote: »

Actually as far as I know her terms weren't related to that they were related to requiring two people to be at home when the delivery was made and I never remember actually being presented with any written terms either.

For some bizarre reason she just expects customers to foot the bill and get refunded when insurance comes through. She even said this is the way they've done it previously whenever this has occurred!

I'm actually amazed that an established company like Tiles of Wisdom can be so ignorant of basic consumer law.

It makes me want to avoid small family run businesses, they are amazing for customer services right up until you hit a consumer rights issue then it's generally an awkward, uphill struggle.

Employees from companies also tend to be more professional when disputes arise, possibly because it goes to the Manager who has training in basic consumer law.

This was a really terrible experience. We didn't even get a chance to settle the bill for the extra money we owed on the changed order.

Will have to email to ask for the balance and send a check which is a bit a awkward considering how belligerent she was.

Big companies aren't any better for adhering to consumer rights. If anything they're worse. While a small business can claim ignorance (how many small businesses would be able to afford a lawyer to draft their T&C's for them?) big ones cant. They usually have a legal team and that means (imo) when their T&C's have breached the law, its because they have actively been trying to limit your consumer rights - probably to save some money to keep shareholders happy. They're not in it to make a living, they're in it to make a profit.

Although to be fair to both big & small......there are hundreds of laws that apply, and some really are subjective and would be down to a court to decide. Although they are not allowed to mislead consumers about their rights - if they do it can amount to a criminal offence under the CPRs.

eskimo26

unholyangel wrote: »

Big companies aren't any better for adhering to consumer rights. If anything they're worse. While a small business can claim ignorance (how many small businesses would be able to afford a lawyer to draft their T&C's for them?) big ones cant. They usually have a legal team and that means (imo) when their T&C's have breached the law, its because they have actively been trying to limit your consumer rights - probably to save some money to keep shareholders happy. They're not in it to make a living, they're in it to make a profit.

Although to be fair to both big & small......there are hundreds of laws that apply, and some really are subjective and would be down to a court to decide. Although they are not allowed to mislead consumers about their rights - if they do it can amount to a criminal offence under the CPRs.

That's maybe true but in fairly clear cut cases which i keep being told this is, they generally know the status quo.

When i say 'large' I'm talking about companies with employed staff not necessarily chains.

I've never heard of such a company telling the customer they have to pay up for rejected goods and wait on the insurance. A manager would know this is wrong under consumer law.

Also a Manager would be more professional not take things so personally. She said we were calling her a liar and got really mad.