Refund or replacement refused by sellar due to their 48hour damage report timescale

Philjhn

Hi I'm hoping someone here can advise me of my rights. I know that under consumer rights act 2015 i am entitled to a full refund within 30 days, however, the online company i have purchased bathroom wall panelling from have a 48 hour time limit to report damage/problems. I was not able to check the 2.4m x1m boards myself so had to wait for my tradesman, which due to the fact they advise do not book work in with tradesperson until you are in reciept of your order, I'd had the order 20 days when i contacted them to ask for a replacement as over 60% of the order is badly damaged and unusable.they accused me of causing the damage and refused, under their terms and conditions to do anything to help, other than to source the same batch number for which i would have to pay for in full. £630 worth! Is this 48hr policy legal? Does the consumer rights 30 day policy overide this? Thanks in advance for any advice

theonlywayisup

Where are the company you purchased from based?

Did you buy online or instore?

How did you pay?

Philjhn

Its national plastics, i ordered online and paid by credit card

theonlywayisup

Was this a B2B transaction?

born_again

While I get you have to wait for a tradesman to install. It does not stop you from checking the product within the 48 hours.

unholyangel

born_again wrote: »

While I get you have to wait for a tradesman to install. It does not stop you from checking the product within the 48 hours.

Luckily theres no need for that because any term stating you need to check within 48 hours would be a unfair term and could even potentially amount to a criminal offence if it has the effect of trying to restrict statutory rights or mislead a consumer about those statutory rights.

The general law allows a period
of six years (five years in Scotland) for making claims for breach of
contract91 where the parties have not agreed a definite period between
themselves, and this may be regarded as the benchmark of fairness.

5.7.2 A term that frees the business from its responsibilities towards the
consumer where the consumer does not make a complaint immediately or
within an unduly short period of time is likely to be considered unfair. This
applies particularly where:
(a) a time limit is so short that ordinary persons could easily miss it, or
overlook it because of circumstances outside their control; and
(b) faults for which the trader is responsible could only become apparent
after a time limit has expired.


A term which sets a lesser time limit on a consumer’s right to enforce the
rights set out in Part 1 of the Act is, in any case, blacklisted for that purpose
and cannot bind the consumer – see paragraph 5.4.1.

5.7.4 Where the consumer’s statutory rights are at issue,92 any fault found in
goods or digital content (which is paid for either directly or indirectly) within
six months of the date of sale is generally assumed to be the business’s
responsibility unless it can prove otherwise. It is therefore particularly unfair
and misleading for terms to seek to exclude or limit the consumer’s right to
redress for faulty goods or digital content during the first six months after
purchase. As noted above (in part 1 ‘other legislation’ on the CPRs) the use
of misleading terms may give rise to enforcement action as an unfair
commercial practice.

However, worth noting the 6 month rule only applies when requesting a repair or replacement. If you're exercising the short term right to reject (aka refund under the 30 days rule) then there is no such assumption made.

theonlywayisup

unholyangel wrote: »

Luckily theres no need for that because any term stating you need to check within 48 hours would be a unfair term and could even potentially amount to a criminal offence if it has the effect of trying to restrict statutory rights or mislead a consumer about those statutory rights.



However, worth noting the 6 month rule only applies when requesting a repair or replacement. If you're exercising the short term right to reject (aka refund under the 30 days rule) then there is no such assumption made.

Whilst I agree, the website appears to be a trade website - it would be helpful if the OP could confirm if this was a B2B transaction or not.

shaun_from_Africa

When you search for National Plastics using a search engine, the link does specifically state that they deal with both trade buyers as well as DIY:



And their T&C's do state that they will sell to consumers:

Unless you are a consumer we do not accept liability for any loss or damage suffered by you in consequence of any failure or delay in delivery.

born_again

unholyangel wrote: »

Luckily theres no need for that because any term stating you need to check within 48 hours would be a unfair term and could even potentially amount to a criminal offence if it has the effect of trying to restrict statutory rights or mislead a consumer about those statutory rights.



However, worth noting the 6 month rule only applies when requesting a repair or replacement. If you're exercising the short term right to reject (aka refund under the 30 days rule) then there is no such assumption made.

While I agree with the above. It is possible that the damage was done while stored.

So why when something is delivered do people not check that it has not been damaged in transit.

unholyangel

born_again wrote: »

While I agree with the above. It is possible that the damage was done while stored.

So why when something is delivered do people not check that it has not been damaged in transit.

It is possible. But if you opt for repair or replacement and its within 6 months, the burden of proving that is on the retailer.

theonlywayisup

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

When you search for National Plastics using a search engine, the link does specifically state that they deal with both trade buyers as well as DIY:



And their T&C's do state that they will sell to consumers:

Which is why the OP needs to update to gain proper advice.