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

shaun_from_Africa

“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.”

societys_child wrote: »

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.

Don't forget that the SOGA doesn't state exactly what was quoted above. (that quote is simply one interpretation of the actual act).
What the act states is:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

and if something is damaged and is not in perfect condition then it doesn't conform to the contract of sale (unless any damage was made clear before the sale) and it is still the responsibility of the retailer to prove that the damage occurred after the buyer had taken delivery of those goods.

societys_child

SOGA is not a 6 months accidental damage insurance policy.

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

If you receive goods that were damaged you should report this at the time, why would anyone not?

societys_child

and it is still the responsibility of the retailer to prove that the damage occurred after the buyer had taken delivery of those goods.

Doesn't failing to report any damage at the time of delivery, or within a reasonable time, help the retailer in this respect?

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

SOGA is not a 6 months accidental damage insurance policy.

If you receive goods that were damaged you should report this at the time, why would anyone not?

Well obviously because they didnt notice.

No one is saying that SoGA is a 6 month accidental damage policy. Just that SoGA assumes faults are inherent unless it is established/proven otherwise.

Furthermore, given the number of threads on here we get with similar circumstances....it would seem that getting the builder/plumber/workmen to check the goods is rather common. In which case OP may well be within a reasonable time to reject.

However that relates to acceptance rather than the right to a remedy. You'd still be entitled to a remedy even if you had accepted the goods.

2.4.6 There is similarly no objection to a term warning consumers of the need to
check to the best of their ability for any defects or discrepancies at the
earliest opportunity, and take prompt action as soon as they become aware
of any problem. Concerns do not arise so long as there is no suggestion
that the supplier disclaims liability for problems which consumers fail to
notice.

In other words, retailers can ask consumers to report within a reasonable time, but cannot disclaim liability if the consumer doesn't spot something (and thus fails to report it because they weren't aware of it at the time).