Fish tank damaged, help

JimmyTheWig

ballyclover wrote: »

debit card

Not as powerful as Section 75 for a credit card purchase, but have a look at chargeback:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/visa-mastercard-chargeback

macman

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

If the OP has space on a credit card, hopefully the refund will come in before the bill is due.

The flaw in this is when the supplier refuses a refund on the basis that the tank was inspected before despatch and found to be in good condition. OP will then need to spend another grand on more fish to fill the second tank...
The principle here is that no retailer can be expected to ship a replacement without first assessing the condition of the allegedly damaged original-and the 'swap on delivery' suggestion is impractical as it gives them no security. Housing the fish temporarily is a unfortunate problem, but it belongs to the OP alone. If you bought a dog kennel that required replacement, would you expect the retailer to pay for kennelling the dog in the meantime? I doubt it.

ballyclover

so, had a reply from the Interne company. They have suggested that the damage could not have occured before it was sent to me as the manufactour sent the tank out direct and as part of thier inspection a robot check the entire tank and it was not possible for the tank to have been damaged in transit due to its protective packing. They suggest i return the tank for inspection but have already said they do not acccept the damage is to do with them from the photographic evidence sent.

They then said i could pay for a new tank and do a swop over, and they would credit me the cost of new tank upon inspection however again have pointed out they have already dismissed this as a possiblitiy and i would be stuck with 2 tanks and the cost of redelivery and i must sign an agreement to make it all legal.

The 3rd choice they have suggested is i claim on my own insurance but surley this is fraud as i did not cause the damage.

Any further advice would be appreciated

marliepanda

You need to think about it from their point of view.

You got it, inspected it and told them it was fine.

Over a week later, used by yourself, it's suddenly not fine anymore.

At some point it became damaged. You told them it wasn't damaged when you got it. Therefore logically it follows you have indeed damaged it, so an insurance claim would not be fraudulent.

ballyclover

i never said it wasnt damaged, i was asked to inspec for glass breakage or obvious signs. This was done and no signs were visable. It wasnt until the tank was filled that the damage was abke to be seen. At no point have i said it was all ok. I know for a fact that no action of mine has caused this damage, it is with a 99.9 % certainy as there was nothing i could do that could cause chipping on the inside of the glass panels

marliepanda

Quote from your original post:

I was told upon delivery to inspect the tank for damage and if any was found to refuse delivery. Anyway no damage was found.

You've changed from 'no damage' to 'no obvious damage or breakages'

They asked you to inspect for damage and you said there wasn't any. Again, if you were the seller, what would you be thinking? If I sold a phone, and they told me it was fine, then a week later they switched it on and said there's a big scratch on the screen, I'd be thinking 'well when did you scratch it.'

ballyclover

marliepanda wrote: »

Quote from your original post:

I was told upon delivery to inspect the tank for damage and if any was found to refuse delivery. Anyway no damage was found.

You've changed from 'no damage' to 'no obvious damage or breakages'

They asked you to inspect for damage and you said there wasn't any. Again, if you were the seller, what would you be thinking? If I sold a phone, and they told me it was fine, then a week later they switched it on and said there's a big scratch on the screen, I'd be thinking 'well when did you scratch it.'

the wording was for broken glass and obvious signs...

plus as already pointed out this codition is not a legal one under my rights i have upto 6 months to report problems belived to be due to failure or manufactour error

Why do i feel your making me out to be in the wrong?

marliepanda

ballyclover wrote: »

the wording was for broken glass and obvious signs...

plus as already pointed out this codition is not a legal one under my rights i have upto 6 months to report problems belived to be due to failure or manufactour error

Why do i feel your making me out to be in the wrong?

Can you post the exact wording?

It is legal. They are offering to do their legal duty. You are refusing because you have fish in the tank.

I'm not saying you are in the wrong, what I am saying is you can completely see why they think you are, one minute you said its fine, a week later you say its not. They offered to inspect it and see if it was in fact manufacturer fault, but you said no.

You want to have another tank to play with whilst you switch over. They think you damaged it yourself, so theyre not going to give you another one to damage until they decide that actually, no you didnt.

ballyclover

The wording was, as i have already said, inspect for broken glass or obvious signs of damage before signing for the item.


As i have explained they have said that the damage was not caused by them, they have said the manufactour has said it was impossible as they 100% inspect. So they have said they will have the tank returned for inspection but have already said it won't be upheld as its unlikely to be caused by them. So do i send it back knowing it will be returned at my expense?


Its nothing to do with my fish, I have already made this clear on here and to the guys from the web site that its fine i will sort something, there was notthing wrong with asking. However i cannot accept an offer for returns on comdition i can prove the damage was them as they have told me it was impossible.

And yes according to the time limited protection of the 1999 act it cannot be forced.

and i quote an earlier post
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf

OP have a read of that - specifically the sections titled "time limit on claims" and "exclusion of liability for faulty or misdescribed goods".


The guidance was written at a time the SoGA was in force, so when it makes reference to a reasonable time, substitute this for 30 days as the consumer rights act applies to any sales entered into on or after the 1st October 2015 (assuming you made your purchase after this date). Furthermore, the act states:

Quote:
(2)An agreement under which the short-term right to reject would be lost before the time limit passes is not binding on the consumer.
Meaning you can't sign away your short term right to reject by agreeing to T&C's or signing a waiver on delivery

daytona0

Ok, let's have the answer to these questions...

1. Do the company have a legal right to inspect the £1,000 fish tank before issuing a refund, repair or replacement?

2. Does a practical solution exist whereby the water is filled up to a level which limits, or preferably negates, the effect of the damage?

From what I can see, that is what it is boiling down to:

- The company are entitled to have their item back and to inspect the damage, making sure that you haven't just been silly and caused it yourself. Incidentally, but you should be liable for any damage which YOU have caused, so this is only fair.

- The company is offering £50 as a way of saying "we will try and meet you halfway and take your word on the situation"


This forum may be called "Consumer Rights", but don't forget that the RETAILER has rights too! They don't necessarily have to send you out another £1,000 without getting their original item back! That would be terribly unfair on the retailer, and may give rise to possible fraud! Especially for a £1,000 item!