Colour variation in laminate - what are my rights

[Deleted User]

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I never said it should matter. But if they were different lengths it may explain (but not excuse) the difference in colour.

No, if the product is the same, the length it is cut to should be irrelevant on the kind of laminate in question. This is not wooden laminate. Aura Gloss White is exactly that.

I suspect the wrong worktop has been sent in error but, without any photos to check, it's impossible to say for sure.

unholyangel

DoaM wrote: »

Therefore by proceeding to fit them then it could be argued that you have "accepted" the goods, in which case any resolution from B&Q may only be goodwill.

Mr.Generous wrote: »

I'd say that by cutting and fitting the worktops you have accepted them.

Acceptance was part of SoGA - it wasn't carried over to CRA. But even under SoGA, acceptance did not mean you lost all right of remedy - just that you could not reject the goods for a refund, you were still entitled to a repair, replacement or reduction in price (or even a refund if the other remedies weren't suitable).

ZenLikeBalance wrote: »

Have had a response from them,


"as its been installed it has been deemed fit for purchase" and they are unable to exchange.

Did they actually say purchase or purpose? Perhaps remind them that goods also need to be as described and they need to be of satisfactory quality taking into account all relevant circumstances (which includes appearance & finish).

ZenLikeBalance

Hi all,

Yes, they said 'purchase'. I thought it an odd word.

I've drafted the letter below from the response by unholyangel (thank you!!). I'd be grateful for any help making it better. I expect I'll use resolver to send it. Should I suggest the 'remedy' or let them make an offer?

******
Dear X,

I refer to my complaint of Thursday 9th February, and your response of Sunday 12th February regarding order number XXX (email attached). I am not satisfied with this response.

I agree that the items were fit for purchase (not dented, scratched or otherwise damaged) but not fit for purpose. Goods need to be as described and they need to be of satisfactory quality taking into account all relevant circumstances (which includes appearance & finish).

I had a very reasonable expectation that you would send matching worktops ready for install. This should be a quality check that you carry out as standard. Two worktops sent to a residential address were clearly destined for the same kitchen and should have been matched by the order picker before dispatch. I ordered online and did not pick the items myself. There is no suggestion on the order or your website that colour variation is possible in laminate.

The result of sending the items you did was either going to involve a return (if I noticed) or this situation (if I didn't).

My faith in your brand is why I assumed I would be sent items fit for purpose. I have bought a lot from you over the years with very little to complain about.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, acceptance (deemed so because I had them installed) did not mean I lost all right to remedy. I am writing in the hope that we can work out an acceptable remedy to this situation.

A timely response would be appreciated as I am unable to install a sink or cooker until this matter is resolved.

Valli

I would take out the sentence beginning 'The result..' as it's irrelevant. Take out the brackets round appearance and finish as this is the reason you're not satisfied.

If you suggest a remedy (your preferred remedy) it might speed up the resolution rather than you sending, waiting for their reply and then you responding.

ZenLikeBalance

Valli wrote: »

I would take out the sentence beginning 'The result..' as it's irrelevant.

Thank you.

Can I ask why this isnt relevant though, as what the sent couldnt have achieved its obvious purpose? Isnt that my point?

Valli

ZenLikeBalance wrote: »

Thank you.

Can I ask why this isnt relevant though, as what the sent couldnt have achieved its obvious purpose? Isnt that my point?

Because the rest of the letter is about the fact that the laminate is faulty. Letters of complaint need to be concise and unemotional. Your main point, that their picker has failed to select matching laminate is made, that's all that is needed.

molerat

Have you no access to the underside of any of the worktop ? Batch numbers, production dates etc are usually printed on the underside during production.

[Deleted User]

molerat wrote: »

Have you no access to the underside of any of the worktop ? Batch numbers etc are usually printed in a line during production.

There are no "batch" numbers on the kind of worktop the OP has purchased. It's not a wooden veneer and there should be no variation in colour between one worktop and another.

I think the thread has rather moved on...

unholyangel

ZenLikeBalance wrote: »

Hi all,

Yes, they said 'purchase'. I thought it an odd word.

I've drafted the letter below from the response by unholyangel (thank you!!). I'd be grateful for any help making it better. I expect I'll use resolver to send it. Should I suggest the 'remedy' or let them make an offer?

******
Dear X,

I refer to my complaint of Thursday 9th February, and your response of Sunday 12th February regarding order number XXX (email attached). I am not satisfied with this response.

I agree that the items were fit for purchase (not dented, scratched or otherwise damaged) but not fit for purpose. Goods need to be as described and they need to be of satisfactory quality taking into account all relevant circumstances (which includes appearance & finish).

I had a very reasonable expectation that you would send matching worktops ready for install. This should be a quality check that you carry out as standard. Two worktops sent to a residential address were clearly destined for the same kitchen and should have been matched by the order picker before dispatch. I ordered online and did not pick the items myself. There is no suggestion on the order or your website that colour variation is possible in laminate.

The result of sending the items you did was either going to involve a return (if I noticed) or this situation (if I didn't).

My faith in your brand is why I assumed I would be sent items fit for purpose. I have bought a lot from you over the years with very little to complain about.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, acceptance (deemed so because I had them installed) did not mean I lost all right to remedy. I am writing in the hope that we can work out an acceptable remedy to this situation.

A timely response would be appreciated as I am unable to install a sink or cooker until this matter is resolved.

Tbh I'd cut out the fit for purpose part (it doesnt match its description/isnt of satisfactory quality but it is fit for purpose - it can still be used for its intended function, the colour doesn't change that) and everything from "the result" onwards.

SoGA was repealed for b2c transactions - it remains in force only for b2b contracts or for b2c contracts that were entered into before the 1st Oct 2015. The relevant legislation is now the Consumer Rights Act. The old sale of goods act used to basically say that you had the right to reject goods (for a refund) unless you had accepted them (although where the goods were delivered and the buyer had not previously examined them, acceptance wouldn't occur until you had had a reasonable time for ascertaining whether the goods conformed to contract). As I said above, that provision was not transposed to the Consumer Rights Act - under the CRA you have a blanket 30 days in which to reject goods that don't conform to contract, there are no stipulations or caveats about acceptance.

DoaM

unholyangel wrote: »

under the CRA you have a blanket 30 days in which to reject goods that don't conform to contract, there are no stipulations or caveats about acceptance.

Is there nothing about taking actions with the goods beyond those necessary to confirm the goods conform to contract?