My Rights ? Table is Under a Year Old

highlandpixie

I purchased a table christmas eve 2018 so it is under a year old
It was sold as a solid oak table and is now 8 months old, a family table ( 4 children sit at this daily) but is cleaned and cared for as it should be ... over the last few weeks the central panels have started to lift like a veneer. table has been cared for no differently in this time, I contacted the company i bought it from and they are wanting me to pay for reports as to why the table has lifted befor they will even take anything to do with it which i dont agree is right. We live in the rural highlands so engineers for this will be few and far between and likely expensive. where do i stand r.e.warranty and my rights ?

neilmcl

highlandpixie wrote: »

I purchased a table christmas eve 2018 so it is under a year old
It was sold as a solid oak table and is now 8 months old, a family table ( 4 children sit at this daily) but is cleaned and cared for as it should be ... over the last few weeks the central panels have started to lift like a veneer. table has been cared for no differently in this time, I contacted the company i bought it from and they are wanting me to pay for reports as to why the table has lifted befor they will even take anything to do with it which i dont agree is right. We live in the rural highlands so engineers for this will be few and far between and likely expensive. where do i stand r.e.warranty and my rights ?

Worth getting this moved to the consumer rights forum page but to briefly answer your question, the retailer is correct, legally the onus is on you to prove the fault lies with the manufacture of the table and not something you've caused. As far as warranty is concerned both parties have to abide with the T&Cs of said warranty, if it's a manufacturer's warranty then you'll need to speak to the manufacturer with regards a warranty claim.

Jackmydad

I'd be wary of paying their own contractor or expert to make a report.
But of course you would have to find someone with the right qualifications to make an acceptable report. Not cheap I'd have thought.
The problem is that without taking the structure of the table top apart, it's going to be very difficult to prove anything either way IMO.
The term "solid oak" is, to the best of my knowledge, virtually meaningless, apart from saying that the table is made from one of the many species of "oak"
It's common practice to engineer tops and panels out of strips of lesser quality timber, and then veneer that to give a finished panel.
To put it very simply if veneer gets wet, or if it's in a damp atmosphere it can lift.
It's all going to depend as well on what glue has been used to lay the veneer, and glue up the sub strata. Waterproof glue will possibly hold better than glue which isn't waterproof.
It also depends on how the table has been used, and where it's kept.
You have said that children sit at the table daily.
Are there any spills for example?
Other things that could effect the top could be keeping the table next to a radiator or source of heat, and having it in direct sunlight.

Aylesbury_Duck

I agree with the above. The cause of the problem is almost certainly humidity-related, i.e. the wood has got wet or there has been a change in the environment which has dried out parts of the table more than others. The root cause might be a design or manufacturing flaw but the retailer is correct. After nine months the onus is on you to show that the problem is an inherent one, and that means having someone look at it and report on it. If that report does suggest that the problem is inherent, you have grounds to pursue it with the retailer and they will have a choice to replace, repair or refund you. If they refund you, they are entitled to deduct an amount for the use you've had to date. They would also be obliged to refund you the cost of the report.

Warranty might be a different process - you need to look into the terms of the warranty, if the manufacture provided one.

dunroving

I wonder if anyone can point to the part of the Consumer Rights Act where the onus is put on the consumer?

I always thought the 6 months watershed is the point at which the consumer can no longer reject the item and insist on a full refund, but could pursue a claim for repair, replacement, or part refund. I didn't think there was anything in the 6 month limit where the onus is on the consumer to prove the item was inherently faulty.

TELLIT01

When you say "Cleaned and cared for as it should be" can you expand on that please. What exactly has been the cleaning and care process?
If you have cleaned on the assumption that the top was a solid plank (a not unreasonable assumption in my view), but the top is actually all oak, but laminated, is it possible that has been a factor in the deterioration?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

dunroving wrote: »

I wonder if anyone can point to the part of the Consumer Rights Act where the onus is put on the consumer?

I always thought the 6 months watershed is the point at which the consumer can no longer reject the item and insist on a full refund, but could pursue a claim for repair, replacement, or part refund. I didn't think there was anything in the 6 month limit where the onus is on the consumer to prove the item was inherently faulty.

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

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.


I.e after 6 months it's not taken that goods didn't conform and therefor the retailer can request the consumer demonstrate the fault.

Consumers have a short term right to reject outright within 30 days for a full refund, but the above quote doesn't include (3)(a) the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22) so again the retailer can request the consumer demonstrate the fault is present if they wish where the consumer is specifically excising the short term right to reject.

The consumer can also reject after one repair attempt which has failed.

That's my understanding of the regs.

As above the problem is very likely humidity and I would say the OP needs to demonstrate the table either isn't of satisfactory quality or is not as described.

highlandpixie

nothing has changed in the house, it has been cleaned with a spray after each use and dried down with a dry microfibre from day one. I have soild oak worktops and this is certainly not how oak acts. the table was £1000 which we only paid as it was supposed to be solid oak and the table is used as a table should be, spills are mopped up when they happen i dont know anyone who owns a table whos never had a spill the kitchen where the table is, is brand new and there is no change to the humidity in the kitchen. its really got me stressed out and the last thing i need on top of a household with 4 autistic kids. i bought this table thinking i wouldnt have to replace if for years not 8 months down the line

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A photo of the the table and problem might help people advise better.

You can upload to a photo hosting site and then provide a broken link

mattyprice4004

dunroving wrote: »

I wonder if anyone can point to the part of the Consumer Rights Act where the onus is put on the consumer?

I always thought the 6 months watershed is the point at which the consumer can no longer reject the item and insist on a full refund, but could pursue a claim for repair, replacement, or part refund. I didn't think there was anything in the 6 month limit where the onus is on the consumer to prove the item was inherently faulty.

I’m not sure where you picked that up from - but unfortunately it’s mostly wrong.
It may be worth reading through all of the legislation posted above so next time you’re in a similar situation, the retailer takes you seriously
Quoting legislation incorrectly usually puts you on the back foot.

The_Rainmaker

highlandpixie wrote: »

It was sold as a solid oak table

If you bought a solid oak table and it isn't a solid oak table then I would argue it was missold.

They of course may have some funny definition of solid oak which you might want to check.