B&Q not replacing faulty goods after 6 months

DIYWannabe

I ordered 5 internal doors online from B&Q, which were delivered in December last year. I left them untouched and unpacked until recently when I got a carpenter in to hang them last week.

He found that one of them was severely damaged, there is a split across the full width of the door and almost completely through the depth of it. This is a £120 solid wood door, the whole thing is bent. It looks a lot like something a fork lift would do and is clearly not fit for purpose.

I was told separately by a shop assistant, shop manager, call handler and initially a manager at head office that B&Q would not replace faulty goods outside of their 45 day return policy. I had to quote consumer rights to get beyond this.

I've provided B&Q with pictures of the very obvious damage, asked for a replacement and offered to take the door to them to avoid hassle for all of us. They are now arguing that as it doesn't look like a manufacturing fault, they are not willing to replace it. They are strongly suggesting that they would only replace it if it was due to a manufacturing fault.

They have asked me to obtain, and have declined to pay for, an 'Independent Assessment'. That the damage was caused in B&Qs supply chain is fairly obvious based on the evidence I have given them. I get the impression they are just trying to delay fixing something that is their responsibility in the hope that I'll give up.

I recognise that after 6 months I can't initially demand a refund, and haven't asked for one. B&Q state that because of the time the onus is on me to prove that the goods are not fit for purpose. I believe I have.

I've said I'll take it to the furniture ombudsman, who I believe will conduct an assessment if they think it's necessary, not that B&Q told me this.

Any advice would be great. Am I missing something about my rights here? Is this a typical level of customer service?

Fosterdog

B&Q are right, after this length of time you have to prove that it was an inherent fault, although you seem to suggest yourself that it is not actually faulty but has been damaged by what you think is a forklift, therefore it will be impossible for you to prove a fault that doesn’t exist.

Anything could have happened to it for the almost year you have had it in your possession and you have had more than enough time to inspect for any damage.

shaun_from_Africa

DIYWannabe wrote: »

the whole thing is bent. It looks a lot like something a fork lift would do and is clearly not fit for purpose.

If a door was stood up against a radiator then it's possible that this could cause the door to bend and split.
This is why after so long the onus is on you to prove that the fault was due to a manufacturing defect or that the door was bent and split when you received it.

stuartJo1989

Just to add, but B+Q should reimburse the cost of the independent fault report IF the fault is deemed inherent.

Of course, your case isn't necessarily a fault! You seem to be mixing up an inherent fault with damage caused in transit.... If it is merely damage in transit then it isn't strictly a manufacturing fault, and is more about ascertaining WHO damaged it. You are on the backfoot because it is assumed that you checked the goods in good time upon receipt.

SouthUKMan

It sounds like you are going to have to pay for a report if you wish to pursue this.

While a retailer's terms and conditions can't trump the law, there is still an expectation on consumers to check goods upon delivery. Waiting more than half a year is not reasonable. It's the difference between a good retailer offering a replacement if the fault is reported within a day or two of delivery (as the probability is that the item was damaged before arrival), or arguing the toss / denying liability if it's reported any later (when there is growing probability that the damage occurred with the customer).

As has been pointed out by others, there is a difference between an item being inherently faulty and one that has suffered damage in transit. An item that can be proved inherently faulty will in law result in recompense. However, if an item is faulty due to damage - then you've likely got a job on your hands trying to prove that the damage occurred prior to delivery. Given the passage of time this is not going to be easy.

If you wish to pursue small claims court action, you will need to commission an independent report, and I am pretty sure a judge will be critical of the length of time that elapsed between delivery and checking the goods - to the point where I would say it's 50/50 whether you would win.

DIYWannabe

Thanks everyone, lots of input.

I can see why the burden of proof is on me after the length of time but given the nature of the damage feel that it being accidental damage in a domestic setting isn't really plausible and this is observable from the pictures that I've given B&Q. Even if I'd put it on the kerb and driven over it I doubt it would break this much.

As far as I can see there are two possible scenarios:
-The door was delivered faulty, so B&Q should replace it.
-Much less likely, but the door split open whilst being stored due to an inherent manufacturing fault. So not fit for purpose and B&Q should replace it.

I am stubborn enough to pay for an inspection, it just seems a waste of time as they won't deduce anything different to what B&Q can already see from the pictures. B&Q have avoided telling me the sort of inspection that they would believe.

Does anyone know the level of proof that would be expected in this scenario in a small claims court? I'm struggling to find it in the consumer rights act.

photome

I think you are on to a loser.

I know hindsight is wonderful but why didn’t you check them when they were delivered which is what Band Q would have expected you to and then any problems would have been sorted.

Sure you can see it from their point of view

Nick_C

I recently had B&Q replace a faulty item that I had bought 9 months earlier. But it was faulty, not damaged.

Warwick_Hunt

DIYWannabe wrote: »

Thanks everyone, lots of input.

I can see why the burden of proof is on me after the length of time but given the nature of the damage feel that it being accidental damage in a domestic setting isn't really plausible and this is observable from the pictures that I've given B&Q. Even if I'd put it on the kerb and driven over it I doubt it would break this much.

As far as I can see there are two possible scenarios:
-The door was delivered faulty, so B&Q should replace it.
-Much less likely, but the door split open whilst being stored due to an inherent manufacturing fault. So not fit for purpose and B&Q should replace it.

I am stubborn enough to pay for an inspection, it just seems a waste of time as they won't deduce anything different to what B&Q can already see from the pictures. B&Q have avoided telling me the sort of inspection that they would believe.

Does anyone know the level of proof that would be expected in this scenario in a small claims court? I'm struggling to find it in the consumer rights act.

You will need to show that on the balance of probably it arrived damaged or has a manufacturing defect.

bris

Door is severely damaged and bent, you would have noticed this on delivery. Your problem was storage. You need to either hang them immediately or store them properly, a bent door is a clear sign of improper storage.

KeithP

DIYWannabe wrote: »

Does anyone know the level of proof that would be expected in this scenario in a small claims court? I'm struggling to find it in the consumer rights act.

It's not in the CRA.

In civil courts, as Warwick says, a case is decided on the balance of probability.

So if you have enough evidence to convince the judge that the damage was more likely to have been caused before delivery, then you win... simple as that.

Of course the converse is also true... if B&Q can convince the judge that what they are saying is more likely to be what has happened, then you lose.

You should also remember that two different judges given exactly the same weak evidence may well reach a different conclusion.

Court is a bit of a gamble.
Do not embark on this course without a good case.