Damaged Goods not checked for period of time after delivery - any rights?

bluejonny

HI Everyone

Looking for some advice here please!

In May, we decided to have a complete new bathroom fitted and rather have someone supply and fit, we decided to find our own goods through various outlets and store them in the house ready for our preferred builder to install (trusted and superb attention to detail!) the beginning of June.

At the end of May deliveries started happening from all over the place - lights, fittings, basins, bath, tiles and a special radiator. It looked like a storeroom in our kitchen.

Our builder had some issues with a previous job and so everything was getting pushed back quite considerably (doing a a big job for Ben Ainslie in Portsmouth!) and as such the work did not commence until 2 weeks ago. This is when our builder discovered that the radiator we ordered was in fact damaged with a massive dent on the top (about 5 inches long) rendering the radiator pretty much useless, as the dent was affecting the bleed area.

Upon inspection the box looks like it had been opened before - brown packing tape covering up a bit of the box that was actually missing. And to add to that dirty fingerprints over the rad not from us.

We spoke to the seller and he contacted his supplier - they are refusing to sort out the problem as they say the item should have been inspected upon delivery and now with the long period of time up until the fault was discovered they are washing their hands of us.

Both seller and his supplier are now refusing to do anything about it.

My point here is that admittedly, we did not check it until when the builder started work at the beginning of July, but as the radiator had not been installed it is clear that the radiator was supplied damaged, the box shows covered up damage and also potentially that it may be second hand based on dirty finger prints on it.

What is the best course of action here or are we at fault?

Thanks everyone!

Bluejonny

cono1717

You say the box looked like it had been opened before on inspection? Did you not notice this when it was delivered? If the box didn't look pristine then ideally you should of queried it at the point of delivery?

Presumably you signed to say there was no damage? You have to think of it from the otherside of things your house is (literally) a building site and after 2 months you ring and say the radiator is damaged. Where you there all the time the builders were there? They may have moved it and damaged it themselves and don't want to admit it - I'm not accusing people but with all those variables it would be hard to just pin blame solely on the delivery company/seller/supplier.

agrinnall

bluejonny wrote: »

We spoke to the seller and he contacted his supplier - they are refusing to sort out the problem as they say the item should have been inspected upon delivery and now with the long period of time up until the fault was discovered they are washing their hands of us.

Both seller and his supplier are now refusing to do anything about it.

Contact the seller (ignore the supplier, you have no contract with them so they are the seller's issue) and remind them of their obligations under the Sale of Goods Act. They will need to prove that the radiator was not damaged when they supplied it.

This of course assumes you've bought as a consumer rather than a business.

bluejonny

cono1717 wrote: »

You say the box looked like it had been opened before on inspection? Did you not notice this when it was delivered? If the box didn't look pristine then ideally you should of queried it at the point of delivery?

Presumably you signed to say there was no damage? You have to think of it from the otherside of things your house is (literally) a building site and after 2 months you ring and say the radiator is damaged. Where you there all the time the builders were there? They may have moved it and damaged it themselves and don't want to admit it - I'm not accusing people but with all those variables it would be hard to just pin blame solely on the delivery company/seller/supplier.

Thanks for the reply. All good were stored safely in our kitchen area - it's only the bathroom we were having done nothing else. The builder couldn't get access to the house without us being in, and we were here when we opened the radiator box, so no he didn't use any damage. Due to sizes of boxes we unpacked everything downstairs as needed and then carried it up stairs. The rad is a small single bathroom one.

bluejonny

agrinnall wrote: »

Contact the seller (ignore the supplier, you have no contract with them so they are the seller's issue) and remind them of their obligations under the Sale of Goods Act. They will need to prove that the radiator was not damaged when they supplied it.

This of course assumes you've bought as a consumer rather than a business.

Yes definitely bought as consumer. I'll go back to them with this point and see what they say. We have bought from them before and they have been brilliant. This time though - no.

InsideInsurance

Is there anything actually wrong with the item itself other than some finger prints on it?

If there is then you can certainly reject the goods under the Sales of Goods Act with the retailer. The CAB use the example of a mower bought in november and not being inspected until spring on acceptance but the same principle applies https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/common-problems-with-products/faulty-goods/what-is-meant-by-accepting-the-goods/

If there is nothing wrong with the item other than a finger print that just cleans off then you may have more issues

LABMAN

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Is there anything actually wrong with the item itself other than some finger prints on it?

If there is then you can certainly reject the goods under the Sales of Goods Act with the retailer. The CAB use the example of a mower bought in november and not being inspected until spring on acceptance but the same principle applies https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/common-problems-with-products/faulty-goods/what-is-meant-by-accepting-the-goods/

If there is nothing wrong with the item other than a finger print that just cleans off then you may have more issues

Did you miss the bit where the OP said there is five inch dent that affects bleeding the rad.?

InsideInsurance

LABMAN wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where the OP said there is five inch dent that affects bleeding the rad.?

yup ?

unholyangel

cono1717 wrote: »

You say the box looked like it had been opened before on inspection? Did you not notice this when it was delivered? If the box didn't look pristine then ideally you should of queried it at the point of delivery?

Presumably you signed to say there was no damage? You have to think of it from the otherside of things your house is (literally) a building site and after 2 months you ring and say the radiator is damaged. Where you there all the time the builders were there? They may have moved it and damaged it themselves and don't want to admit it - I'm not accusing people but with all those variables it would be hard to just pin blame solely on the delivery company/seller/supplier.

(2)Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—

(a)of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract, and

(b)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.

(3)Where the buyer deals as consumer or (in Scotland) the contract of sale is a consumer contract, the buyer cannot lose his right to rely on subsection (2) above by agreement, waiver or otherwise.

Not reporting it for so long may mean the OP is deemed to have accepted the goods, but that doesn't mean they're not still entitled to a remedy.

Signing for a delivery is accepting the delivery, not accepting the goods under SoGA.

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.

societys_child

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.

But that refers to faults, not damage caused to goods within 6 months (don't think SOGA covers that) . So the question remains who/ when/ where was the damage caused.

If I was the supplier, I'd wonder why the damage (and fact the carton was damaged and taped up) not mentioned at the time of delivery? We may believe the op but why would the supplier not be suspicious?

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

But that refers to faults, not damage caused to goods within 6 months . So the question remains who/ when/ where was the damage caused.

If I was the supplier, I'd wonder why the damage (and fact the carton was damaged and taped up) not mentioned at the time of delivery? We may believe the op but why would the supplier not be suspicious?

So you if received goods that were damaged, you wouldn't say they are faulty?

Something being faulty just means it has defects - it doesn't relate to a particular type of defect - it encompasses them all.