In battle with 2 businesses over a damaged TV, what are my consumers right?

Ibl0010

@lovinituk. I get your point that me booking the courier is just like me picking up the TV myself. Of course, when I asked the seller said they checked the TV and there was had no damage to it before it was picked up. There is not way of proving if it was damaged by the seller before it was picked up or it was damaged by the delivery company.

Ibl0010

Thanks to you guys for your comments so far. With everything that has been said so far, do I (1) have any consumers right toward the seller or delivery company and (2) is there a way to get the seller to prove that the item they send me was as described.

lovinituk

Ibl0010 wrote: »

The argument I had with the delivery company was that 1) I messed up for forgetting to tick the box without ready the prohibited list but 2) after they made me aware of the prohibited list and I checked there was no statement to say that I was made the booking at my own risk 3) the TV is a prohibited item due to size and potential damage but yet they took the extra I payed to cover the TV for loss and damages.

Ibl0010 wrote: »

@lovinituk. I get your point that me booking the courier is just like me picking up the TV myself. Of course, when I asked the seller said they checked the TV and there was had no damage to it before it was picked up. There is not way of proving if it was damaged by the seller before it was picked up or it was damaged by the delivery company.

It looks to me that your only possible avenue is against the courier company.

I have no idea how well their T&Cs would stand up in a small claims court. Perhaps they would be deemed as unfair, perhaps not. That might be a risk you have to take...or wait until someone with better knowledge comes along.

custardy

Ibl0010 wrote: »

Thanks to you guys for your comments so far. With everything that has been said so far, do I (1) have any consumers right toward the seller or delivery company and (2) is there a way to get the seller to prove that the item they send me was as described.

Nope/ lesson learned.
Pretty much everyone excludes items like TVs due to the damage risk.

sheramber

you would have to prove it was damaged before collection.

When we had to return a faulty tv the courier sent by the shop was supplied with an instamatic camera and was supposed to photograph the tv before it was wrapped.

Nobody told us so the tv was already securely wrapped. He took a photo of the wrapped tv.

It seemed pointless as the tv didn't work.

Ibl0010

In my situation that I have described, would the sales of goods act work in my favour toward the seller. Just can't help but feel I am getting fobbed off. The seller refuse to reply to my message.

lovinituk

No, because the Sale of Goods Act was replaced by the Consumer Contracts Regulations.

I don't see you have a case against the seller because you instructed your own courier. You can't possibly prove the damage was there before your courier collected it.

Ibl0010

Seller not responding to my messages via eBay but I have managed to make contact through main sales website.

The person I managed to get an answer from yesterday via a sales web site told me that the company sells tv to the employee as a bonus and he then sell the TV off eBay. They told me they have cctv and have given authorisations to the employee to release cctv footage of the TV i bought been dispatched in the condition it was described on ebay. I am now contacting seller on ebay demanding for this footage but no answer.

I was told the ebay seller name that sold me the TV on ebay but the name I was told and the name on the eBay legal information section is different.

Assuming the company itself sell TV to their employees as a bonus to sell off, the seller on ebay is trading under similar name to the actual company I managed to get a reply frome. Likewise, the trading address the person is using on ebay is the same as the trading address on the main sales website.

Is it likely that an employee can trade under similar name and same address as the company they work for. Something sounds fishy.

powerful_Rogue

Ibl0010 wrote: »

Seller not responding to my messages via eBay but I have managed to make contact through main sales website.

The person I managed to get an answer from yesterday via a sales web site told me that the company sells tv to the employee as a bonus and he then sell the TV off eBay. They told me they have cctv and have given authorisations to the employee to release cctv footage of the TV i bought been dispatched in the condition it was described on ebay. I am now contacting seller on ebay demanding for this footage but no answer.

I was told the ebay seller name that sold me the TV on ebay but the name I was told and the name on the eBay legal information section is different.

Assuming the company itself sell TV to their employees as a bonus to sell off, the seller on ebay is trading under similar name to the actual company I managed to get a reply frome. Likewise, the trading address the person is using on ebay is the same as the trading address on the main sales website.

Is it likely that an employee can trade under similar name and same address as the company they work for. Something sounds fishy.

All totally irrelevant to your situation. Seems you are ignoring the advice already given and fishing for solutions that aren't there.

Also in regards to the CCTV, you can demand, but you have no legal right to the footage.

Ibl0010

No I am not ignoring the advice you guys have given but just seems they are fobbing me off some how.