Worktop woes 😭 What are my rights?

theonlywayisup

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

It's far from being clear cut.
Yes, a consumer has the right of rejection for up to 30 days from the date of delivery for goods that are faulty but in this instance, the onus is on the consumer to prove the breach of contract.

If the seller has something stating that the worktops were inspected when being loaded onto the delivery van and also a signed note from the OP stating that they were checked and were in good condition when delivered and were in the OP's possession for a further two weeks, it's possible that a judge could decide that the damage happened after delivery.

It doesn't matter what the seller has apropos the loading/delivery or anything. The consumer has 30 days to reject. There is no need to prove anything. This isn't breach of contract, this is a straight rejection.

Sigh.

Hermione_Granger

theonlywayisup wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the seller has apropos the loading/delivery or anything. The consumer has 30 days to reject. There is no need to prove anything. This isn't breach of contract, this is a straight rejection.

Sigh.

You can sigh all you like but reading up on the law may be of more use to you.
Yes, a consumer has 30 days to reject goods providing that those goods are faulty or not as described.
However, if the retailer can show that the goods were not faulty when delivered and that any fault that the consumer is claiming is now there is likely to have been caused by the consumer mishandling or damaging the goods, the short term right of rejection does not apply.

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.
(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

theonlywayisup

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

You can sigh all you like but reading up on the law may be of more use to you.

And for you too.

You are reading section 19 . And have misquoted it - out of context.

We aren't talking about section 19.

Furts

I do not know what happened on the delivery but were I receiving worktops, or bags of cement or whatever it would go something like this ...

Lorry driver in a rush, and time is money for me off loading ... so a quick cursory check - typically are the quantities and colours correct and any obvious damage ...driver wants a signature from me saying everything is satisfactory ... I sign and capital letter my name, but now the crux done all over the country on construction sites, I write "unexamined" in capitals on the delivery ticket. This is to protect my interests, and the driver does not bat an eye lid at this being done - everybody does it!

My intuition is OP will have signed for delivery and when doing so have confirmed the worktops were in good condition. If this is a standard delivery clause then OP will find it difficult convincing a Judge that all worktops were blatantly defective.

david1951

theonlywayisup wrote: »

No need to sue david, the legislation allows for a rejection within 30 days.

You suggested it!

theonlywayisup wrote: »

If the company don't play ball then he/she may have to send an LBA and threaten legal action.

Let's use your scenario and play this out.

- OP threatens legal action (as you suggest).
- Company refuses to pay
- OP needs to file a claim, presumably via Money Claim Online (i.e., small claims)
- Company files a defence to said claim, stating that OP started working on one of the worktops (which they admit), at least opened the other (again, they admit), all after storing them incorrectly for at least two weeks (again, they admit this).
- They turn up to the hearing with supporting evidence, e.g., statement from delivery driver, delivery company, T&Cs, all of which could be made up or fabricated.
- Using your recommendation OP doesn't prepare at all and turns up thinking it's a clear cut win.

What do you think will happen? Do you think it's good advice to say:

theonlywayisup wrote: »

There is no need to prove anything. This isn't breach of contract, this is a straight rejection.

shaun_from_Africa

I always thought that when rejecting goods because they were faulty or otherwise failed to conform to contract, the onus was on the consumer to prove that there was a valid reason for the rejection.
Simply showing that the worktops were damaged isn't good enough. There must be reasonable proof that the worktops were in that condition when delivered.

If this wasn't the case, anyone could simply decide that they didn't want something, damage it, then return for a full refund up to 30 days from purchase.

Hermione_Granger

theonlywayisup wrote: »

And for you too.

You are reading section 19 . And have misquoted it - out of context.

We aren't talking about section 19.

Correct. I am reading section 19 of the CRA.
Why am I reading this particular section?

Because this section is about goods not conforming to contract and it doesn't specify anything about the time limit for this non conformity so it must apply at any time up to 6 years from the date of purchase (or delivery) and it specifically mentions sections 9, 10 & 11 (which are goods to be as described and free from damage)

Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods
(1)In this section and sections 22 to 24 references to goods conforming to a contract are references to—
(a)the goods conforming to the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14,

The notes from the CRA also state that:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/1

97.Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.

It clearly states that a fault in the first 6 months from delivery is deemed to have been present at delivery but this does not apply when the consumer uses the short term right of rejection.
Therefore, when rejecting goods within 30 days from delivery, it is the consumers responsibility to prove that the fault was there at the time of delivery.

Furts

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Therefore, when rejecting goods within 30 days from delivery, it is the consumers responsibility to prove that the fault was there at the time of delivery.

We have after many posts now gone full circle. How can OP prove the fault was there on delivery when she admits she struggled with handling the worktops, and now says there was a broken toe - how did that happen? Were the worktops dropped, or knocked during the handling from the lorry to the storage position?

Regardless, OP still fails to accept the worktops were placed by her and the delivery man on their leading edges and also stored on these edges - again by OP and the delivery man. Both these operations were erroneous.

The delivery man can be expected to be managing and controlling his lorry, but the home environment will be the management and control of OP. Hence OP cannot place over whelming blame on the delivery driver for what happened with the worktops placing and storing here.

Bear in mind gloss worktops need treating with kid gloves. Then if they are poor quality worktops (and we forum folks have no insight here because OP has not enlightened us) even more care and caution is required. Yet they were stored for weeks on their leading edges - unbelievable!

Legalise apart, I am simply applying common sense and still say OP stands little chance of achieving the redress she seeks.

Hermione_Granger

Furts wrote: »

We have after many posts now gone full circle. How can OP prove the fault was there on delivery when she admits she struggled with handling the worktops, and now says there was a broken toe - how did that happen? Were the worktops dropped, or knocked during the handling from the lorry to the storage position?

It will be very difficult for them to do which was exactly my point, something that was disputed by theonlywayisup.
In my earlier post, I stated that as the retailer probably had a loading note stating that the worktops were okay when put onto the delivery lorry and also a delivery note signed by the OP saying that the worktops were in good condition when delivered, proving that the damage was not caused by them would be extremely difficult.
theonlywayisup's response to this was:

It doesn't matter what the seller has apropos the loading/delivery or anything. The consumer has 30 days to reject. There is no need to prove anything. This isn't breach of contract, this is a straight rejection.

and that's why I posted the links to the CRA and related notes showing that the OP does need to prove something.

ryder72

I think the red herring here is how the worktop was stacked and at what point it may have been damaged.

What is clear is that the contract OP entered into stipulates a timescale to report damages and this is precisely so that the retailer can claim damages from the courier.

OP for whatever reasons has not checked the product received and not reported damages in the stipulated timeframe. Further OP started installation of the product without a thorough check for damages. Usually that would be deemed as goods accepted.

Consumer may have 30 days or whatever to reject goods but they have to be sent back in the same condition as received and if no record was made of receipt of damaged good then the goods are deemed to have been received in acceptable condition.

OP - you really havent got a leg to stand on. Ask the retailer if they can help with the cost of a replacement as a gesture of goodwill and move on.