Ebuyer damaged in transit policy

exoticdisease

Hi all


Recently bought a motherboard from eBuyer, didn't open it particularly promptly but when I did, discovered it was damaged. Raised an RMA and they told me that because it was damaged in transit, I had exceeded the window of 7 days to report and also the warranty was no longer valid. I'm a residential customer.


Is this legit? Can they really only offer 7 days to report? What about if something is a present!? I was assuming I'd have my 30 days of fault protection followed by a year of warranty for any further defects. I looked at the consumer rights act but it doesn't appear to specify for damaged in transit time limits. Could anyone give me some advice, please?


Thanks
Rob

theonlywayisup

As they are trading from the UK they are governed by UK legislation.

You are protected by the Consumer Rights Act which gives you 30 days to reject the items.

You can read a friendly-version here. https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-to-complain-if-you-receive-damaged-goods-in-the-post

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

exoticdisease

Great, thank you! I assumed as much and even read the consumer rights act to try to find the place where they are allowed to specify different terms. This is their policy from the site, is this illegal?


Items Damaged in Transit

If any items were damaged in transit, we ask that you report it to us within seven working days (please note that this is two working days for our business customers). If the items are visibly damaged on receipt, we recommend that you record this on the carrier's delivery note. Items should be returned in their original packaging complete with all accessories and documentation. Once received back into our warehouse, we'll issue a replacement or full refund to you via your original payment method and reimburse your reasonable return carriage costs.
Items Faulty on Arrival

If your purchases are faulty on arrival, we request that you inform us within 30 days of receipt if you wish to receive a full refund (please note that for our business customers, this is 14 days). Items should be made available for collection or returned in their original packaging complete with all accessories and documentation. Once we have verified the fault, we'll issue a replacement or full refund to you via your original payment method and reimburse your reasonable return carriage costs up to a maximum of £3.50. We test returned items, and if a returned item is found not to be faulty by our technicians we will return the item to you, in this instance you will be liable for the return carriage costs.


You can see the items damaged in transit section - but I'm pretty sure there is no provision for that in the CRA!

MB69

Hi Rob

How long ago did you buy this? More or less than 30 days?

Ebuyer generally use big packaging and some bubble wrap inside the box. Did the outer box show any sign of damage? What exactly has happened that makes you think it is damage in transit and not factory damage? Can you explain the damage.

Wiseguy

Hi

Section 29 of the CRA 2015 relates to when the risk passes from the trader to the consumer:

(2)The goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of:-
(a)the consumer, or
(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

You may also want to refer Ebuyer to Section 31 of the CRA which says:

A term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader's liability arising under any of these provisions:-
...
(k) section 29 (passing of risk)

shaun_from_Africa

Even though the CRA gives you 30 days to reject the item, the act also makes you responsible for proving that the fault or damage was not down to something that you did.
Very few companies actually insist on the consumer doing this but as it is their right, I wouldn't be surprised to find that ebuyer do exactly that.

bris

Damaged in transit would be pretty obvious, as in a big bash on the well packaged box.


As it's been over 7 days with obviously no sings of damage on the box they will now pass the buck back to you for accidental damage.


It's all very well saying they have to prove it etc but when they see physical damage they are proving it as far as they are concerned.


This then turns it into a civil matter that the courts will decide on and timeframe damage done itc will be taken into consideration.


Like most motherboard complaint my moneys on bent pins.

exoticdisease

You are correct, it was bent pins on the sata port - the plastic cap came off. Nowhere in the Consumer Rights Act does it state that if it's more than 7 days since date of receipt then the trader can legitimately push the burden of proof of damage onto the consumer so I don't think argument holds legal sway somehow.


Either way, I claimed within 14 days, CRA says 30 days. I was rejected. Then I posted a whole load of quoted bits from the CRA making my case, suddenly, like magic, my case has been reopened and accepted. It strikes me that ebuyer are doing something illegal in stating that it is their policy to reject claims for damage in transit that are reported more than 7 days are date of receipt, unless someone knows something I don't about damage in transit being separate from anything else in CRA? Certainly couldn't find anything in there.


Regardless, I'm happy now because I fought my case and won haha! Let this be a lesson to anyone else who has to deal with ebuyer's possibly slightly dodgy damage in transit policy that possibly doesn't comply with CRA.


Thanks everyone!

[Deleted User]

Amazing how you managed to resolve a problem within 5 hours with a notoriously slow seller. Even more so for an issue where it's almost impossible to "bend pins" on a motherboard SATA port, especially the way motherboards are packed in anti-static packaging then placed in a box then placed in another box.

You must be very "special" indeed!

Edited to add: There aren't pins on a SATA port!

shaun_from_Africa

exoticdisease wrote: »

Nowhere in the Consumer Rights Act does it state that if it's more than 7 days since date of receipt then the trader can legitimately push the burden of proof of damage onto the consumer so I don't think argument holds legal sway somehow.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

(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.

For the first 6 months from when the consumer took possession of the goods, and fault is deemed to have been there from that time unless the consumer is using their short term (30 day) right of rejection.
In that case, the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault was there at delivery. The short term rejection is covered by 19-3a which from reading section 14 (above) means that there is no burden of proof on the retailer in this instance.

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

So if you want a repair or replacement then the fault is deemed to have been there when you took possession of the goods and the retailer must prove otherwise.
If you are rejecting the goods within 30 days and want a refund then the burden of proof falls on the consumer.

I've never actually heard of any retailer asking for this proof but the law does entitle them to do so.

theonlywayisup

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted


For the first 6 months from when the consumer took possession of the goods, and fault is deemed to have been there from that time unless the consumer is using their short term (30 day) right of rejection.
In that case, the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault was there at delivery. The short term rejection is covered by 19-3a which from reading section 14 (above) means that there is no burden of proof on the retailer in this instance.



So if you want a repair or replacement then the fault is deemed to have been there when you took possession of the goods and the retailer must prove otherwise.
If you are rejecting the goods within 30 days and want a refund then the burden of proof falls on the consumer.

I've never actually heard of any retailer asking for this proof but the law does entitle them to do so.

This sums it up perfectly.

To add, I have only heard of one retailer asking for proof (Very) and that was a thread on here months/a year ago, but the OP of that thread went via S75 from memory.