What are my rights when received damaged goods

Poppie68

Sometimes actually going in store and speaking face2face can achieve what a faceless email or phone call cannot...

unholyangel

wealdroam wrote: »

I do have some sympathy with the seller's stance.

However, as I said earlier, the Consumer Rights Act gives you the right to reject the goods for a full refund up to thirty days following the sale.

But remember, I also said that you may need to prove the goods were faulty on arrival.

If you cannot provide that proof, then I fear you will be unable to progress this.

Although thats only if OP wants a refund. If they're willing to accept a repair or replacement, then its up to the company to prove it wasn't inherent.

OP these are some terms that were found in breach of the old legislation (which only required that a "reasonable" time be given and did not have any specific time limits like the 30 days in the CRA):

Group 2(d): Time limits on claims

Original term
… the Customer shall … give Maples written notice of such loss or
damage with reasonable particulars thereof within 3 days of receipt of the
Goods.
Action taken
New term: … You must tell us about any fault or damage as soon as is
reasonably possible.

Original term
Faulty goods will be exchanged if returned or notified within 7 days from
the date of invoice and returned in original, clean and full packaging.
Action taken
Term deleted

Original Term
Written notice of any defect in the goods when delivered shall be served
upon the company within 7 days of delivery. The Customer shall be
deemed to have accepted the goods 7 days after delivery.
Action taken
New term: The Customer is asked to examine the goods as soon as
reasonably possible after delivery and notify the Company of any fault or
damage as soon as reasonably possible.

The accompanying guidance states:

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.

When it makes reference to an offence, it means a criminal one under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

bris

Problem you have is that you left it so long they believe it to now be user damage. If you can't get the to agree with you a court will have to decide.


All the rights in the world will not get the op anywhere, I can certainly see where the retailer is not playing ball. It's now a civil matter, only a fair person can decide and that fair person is the one hearing the case.

ThumbRemote

bris wrote: »

Problem you have is that you left it so long they believe it to now be user damage. If you can't get the to agree with you a court will have to decide.


All the rights in the world will not get the op anywhere, I can certainly see where the retailer is not playing ball. It's now a civil matter, only a fair person can decide and that fair person is the one hearing the case.

The retailer have made no effort whatsoever to show that it's user damage. They are simply referring to their own, illegal, terms and conditions.

The law is clearly on the consumers side in this case.

marliepanda

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The retailer have made no effort whatsoever to show that it's user damage. They are simply referring to their own, illegal, terms and conditions.

The law is clearly on the consumers side in this case.

Not true. You seem to only post things to contradict everyone else.

As Wealdrom said they have the short term right to reject if they can show the item was damaged. They cannot.

The only way this can go further is with court and no one here can say whose way that will go. The law is not 'clearly' on the consumers side.

I suggest you go and buy something, smash it up after 29 days and try to get your money back. After all, the law would clearly be on your side.

ThumbRemote

marliepanda wrote: »

Not true. You seem to only post things to contradict everyone else.

As Wealdrom said they have the short term right to reject if they can show the item was damaged. They cannot.

The only way this can go further is with court and no one here can say whose way that will go. The law is not 'clearly' on the consumers side.

I suggest you go and buy something, smash it up after 29 days and try to get your money back. After all, the law would clearly be on your side.

I didn't say anything about the short term right to reject. The OP wanted a replacement or repair. In this case the law states that a fault is assumed to be inherent within 6 months. Therefore, unless the retailer demonstrates that the fault was not inherent, the OP is entitled to a remedy.

The retailer has not done this, and has made no effort to do this.

The OP reported it within the legal timescales allowed. The retailer has illegal terms in their T&Cs and is attempting to deny the OP their statutory rights based on this. That's hardly likely to go down well in court either.

EmmyLou30

It's Oak Furnitureland you say? You're lucky all it had wrong with it was a dent to be honest. I'd just accept it and move on. Even if you had reported it within the 2 days they'd flout the law and refuse you a refund or replacement if that's any consolation!? As that's how that company like to do business. Just read the other posts on this forum about them.

societys_child

ThumbRemote wrote: »

In this case the law states that a fault is assumed to be inherent within 6 months..

It's not a fault, the item is damaged.

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

It's not a fault, the item is damaged.

Just to be pedantic.....goods that are damaged are faulty. Not inherently so but they're still faulty.

However, the legislation doesn't actually say faulty. It speaks of goods conforming to contract/failing to conform to contract.

Thats why even signs saying "no refund unless faulty" are illegal, because if an item is misdescribed, its not faulty yet it still fails to conform to contract so the sign is misleading consumers about their rights.

iyswim.

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

Just to be pedantic.....goods that are damaged are faulty. Not inherently so but they're still faulty.

However, the legislation doesn't actually say faulty. It speaks of goods conforming to contract/failing to conform to contract.

Thats why even signs saying "no refund unless faulty" are illegal, because if an item is misdescribed, its not faulty yet it still fails to conform to contract so the sign is misleading consumers about their rights.

iyswim.

Agreed. But of course big dents in something are difficult to prove we're inherent after 24 days!

I've dented many things I've bought within 5 minutes! Suppliers know this. It's very difficult to prove you haven't been careless with it, as on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely to be user damage after that long.