We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Damaged Online Furniture
shinytop
Posts: 2,105 Forumite
Hi,
Hoping for some advice. I bought a two chairs and a footstool online and one chair arrived damaged. The seller states on its web site and email communications that customers must inspect all goods fully before signing for them. My wife received the goods and signed without inspecting them. In order to have inspected them she would have had to unwrap them, and lift them down from the pallet herself, which she is not capable of doing. They would then have stood outside for several hours at the risk of being rained on. The courier's policy is 'kerbside'; the driver will drop the pallet and that's it (although it was dropped on my property).
I'm very happy with the other items and I want the damaged item repaired. The seller has offered to repair but is asking me to pay carriage on the grounds that I signed for the goods as undamaged. I don't think that's right. I'm thinking the easiest way would be to pay and then recover it through the small claims court. They are only asking for £50 (and it would cost a lot more for me to send them) but why should I have to pay anything? They have admitted in writing it was damaged in transit, i.e. they are not accusing me. The other point is that they are bespoke items and I do actually want them.
Any thoughts?
Hoping for some advice. I bought a two chairs and a footstool online and one chair arrived damaged. The seller states on its web site and email communications that customers must inspect all goods fully before signing for them. My wife received the goods and signed without inspecting them. In order to have inspected them she would have had to unwrap them, and lift them down from the pallet herself, which she is not capable of doing. They would then have stood outside for several hours at the risk of being rained on. The courier's policy is 'kerbside'; the driver will drop the pallet and that's it (although it was dropped on my property).
I'm very happy with the other items and I want the damaged item repaired. The seller has offered to repair but is asking me to pay carriage on the grounds that I signed for the goods as undamaged. I don't think that's right. I'm thinking the easiest way would be to pay and then recover it through the small claims court. They are only asking for £50 (and it would cost a lot more for me to send them) but why should I have to pay anything? They have admitted in writing it was damaged in transit, i.e. they are not accusing me. The other point is that they are bespoke items and I do actually want them.
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
-
You don't have to pay carriage for faulty goods, nor do you have to inspect the goods at the kerbside if it is not practicable to do so.0
-
I used to scribble 'unchecked' below my signature, but was later told that this meant nothing and gave no protection. So then when I got a delivery I used to give the driver a choice, hang around for an hour or so while I thoroughly check the goods, or leave without a signature.
I have always thought that 'inspection on delivery' clauses are unfair and should be disallowed. Overall though I think the consumer is protected from these now.IITYYHTBMAD0 -
Perhaps provide this link to the trader:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf
And specifically draw their attention to these parts: Terms requiring that the goods are accepted as satisfactory on delivery,
or imposing unreasonable conditions on the consumer’s right to return
them if faulty.
Consumers normally have a short-term right to examine goods and
reject them if faulty (see the table of statutory rights above, part 4). This
right normally lasts for 30 days. Consumers cannot legally be deprived
of this right by being required to sign ‘satisfaction notes’ on delivery, or
by being required to return goods in a way that may not be possible –
for example, in disposable packaging that they are likely to discard after
opening.
5.4.2 As well as being doubly open to challenge under the Act, the use of such
disclaimers is liable to mislead consumers about their statutory rights. As
such, it can potentially give rise to enforcement action as an unfair
commercial practice (see part 1 ‘other legislation’ on the CPRs).
Disclaimers used in sales of digital content give rise to similar concerns to
those used in sales of goods.
Basically, not only are such term unenforceable under law, they can amount to a criminal offence under the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations if they seek to/have the object of misleading consumers about their rights.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
ARandomMiser wrote: »I used to scribble 'unchecked' below my signature, but was later told that this meant nothing and gave no protection. So then when I got a delivery I used to give the driver a choice, hang around for an hour or so while I thoroughly check the goods, or leave without a signature.
I have always thought that 'inspection on delivery' clauses are unfair and should be disallowed. Overall though I think the consumer is protected from these now.
Have been for at least the last 17 years (possibly longer). The problem (as always) is that until consumers know their rights, they have no idea whether a trader is acting contrary to those rights and in my experience, people tend to have a mistaken belief that traders aren't allowed to do anything illegal so if a trader is doing it, then it must be okay and not against the law.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
Thanks for the replies, especially the link to the unfair terms. I'm going to pay them the money (making it clear I don't agree) wait for them to repair and return then point out the relevant clauses and that I plan to take them to the small claims court if they don't return the money. I'd rather not give them any money up front but it's going to be the easiest/cheapest way for me to return the item.
Other posters are right, they are trying it on and get away with it most of the time because people don't know their rights or can't be bothered to argue.0 -
Thanks for the replies, especially the link to the unfair terms. I'm going to pay them the money (making it clear I don't agree) wait for them to repair and return then point out the relevant clauses and that I plan to take them to the small claims court if they don't return the money. I'd rather not give them any money up front but it's going to be the easiest/cheapest way for me to return the item.
Other posters are right, they are trying it on and get away with it most of the time because people don't know their rights or can't be bothered to argue.
Why don't you do it the other way round?
Send them the clauses, explain you want the chair repaired and are otherwise delighted with the items.
Don't pay up and try to reclaim without giving them an opportunity to see they are in the wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.4K Spending & Discounts
- 238.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.8K Life & Family
- 252.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards