Damaged goods not being replaced!!

JetpackVelociraptor

While the onus is on the retailer to prove that the item was not delivered faulty, they could probably argue that the fault being so obvious and not being reported for 21 weeks strongly suggests that it was damaged while in your care. If the shelf is a separate part attached to the rest of it have you tried asking them for a replacement part? They might be more amenable to assisting with a repair rather than a full replacement. You can try to put together some evidence to suggest that it was damaged on delivery, for eg if you can show that there's damage to the external packaging or if there's damage to the internal packaging but not the external packaging. Especially if you have any photos that you've taken earlier that show damage to the outer box, say photos of the room it was in, preferably taken with the first 30 days? Photos contain hidden information called EXCIF data which usually records the product used to take the picture and the date, so an unedited picture could constitute proof. If you paid via credit card you could contact them and see about making a claim through the card company but you may still require some evidence for that.

From the retailers POV, most customers who contact them regarding a fault after the first thirty days will say that the item was never removed from the packaging, stored away from where any work was being done, and has remained untouched by human hands, not even sunlight hath besmirched its finish and yet somehow a fault spontaneously arose while they were sitting quietly in another room not touching the item. Nobody ever says "my builder dropped a stack of bricks on it and it broke" or "I did use a machete to open the packaging, is that why there's a cut in it?".

Jenni_D

zoob said:

Mr007 said:

sheramber said:

Your problem is that you have no proof that is arrived damaged and has not been  damaged  in these  21 weeks.

I assume you did not check it when it arrived.

I read within 6 months it’s not up to me to prove this.

Thats correct but they would say you've had the radiator 6 months and not reported any damage therfore to them it's being perfectly fine until now

If that's the case it's back to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you where unable to inspect radiator  before it became around 6 months old

But the OP hasn't had it for 6 months. Even it it was delivered on 01-Sep-22 (which is highly unlikely, as the OP says they ordered it in September), the 6 months period doesn't expire until 01-Mar-23.

sheramber

I bought a radiator from Easy Bathroom (store) 

Does that mean you bought it in a store, not online?

Jenni_D

That doesn't matter in respect of goods not conforming to contract. (Consumer Rights Act 2015).

zoob

Jenni_D said:

zoob said:

Mr007 said:

sheramber said:

Your problem is that you have no proof that is arrived damaged and has not been  damaged  in these  21 weeks.

I assume you did not check it when it arrived.

I read within 6 months it’s not up to me to prove this.

Thats correct but they would say you've had the radiator 6 months and not reported any damage therfore to them it's being perfectly fine until now

If that's the case it's back to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you where unable to inspect radiator  before it became around 6 months old

But the OP hasn't had it for 6 months. Even it it was delivered on 01-Sep-22 (which is highly unlikely, as the OP says they ordered it in September), the 6 months period doesn't expire until 01-Mar-23.

Yes your 100% Jenni_D  my mistake I obviously have trouble counting big numbers lol

Since the retailer is stating they not excepting damage exchange after 5 months of product in customers possession because they should have being notified any issues within a reasonable period, it's up to customer now to prove it had arrived damaged 
I'm assuming radiator obviously hasn't being installed? 

Manxman_in_exile

I'm not sure why people are suggesting either that the OP needs to prove anything, or that the bogus T&C about informing the trader of any damage within 48 hours has any relevance.  Isn't the law clear?

"19  Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods

(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."

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

So the law says that the radiator "must be taken not to have conformed to" contract on the day it was delivered, unless the contrary can be established.  So long as the problem is discovered within 6 months, the law says nothing about the consumer having to inspect the goods on day 1, or day 2, or day 3,... or day 130, or any other day.  It's not for the OP to prove anything.  It's for the trader to establish (on the balance of probabilities) that the radiator conformed to contract on the day of delivery.  How they could possibly do that is not clear to me.  When the OP discovered the damage is irrelevant.

If it were to come down to a "he said, she said" there's an obvious way to look at it.  Would a court be more likely to believe (1) a consumer with no evidence against them that they are not telling the truth, or (2) a trader seeking to rely on a bogus term in the contract that is unlawful* and the purpose of which is clearly to mislead consumers as to their statutory rights?

I know who I'd be more likely to say I believe...

(All the above assumes this was a consumer purchase and not B2B)

*Insofar as the term could be interpreted as attempting to mislead the consumer as to their stautory rights, could it also possibly be argued that the term amounted to an offence under Regulation 5 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk) as a misleading commercial practice?

HillStreetBlues

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm not sure why people are suggesting either that the OP needs to prove anything, or that the bogus T&C about informing the trader of any damage within 48 hours has any relevance.  Isn't the law clear?

"19  Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods

(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."

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

So the law says that the radiator "must be taken not to have conformed to" contract on the day it was delivered, unless the contrary can be established.  So long as the problem is discovered within 6 months, the law says nothing about the consumer having to inspect the goods on day 1, or day 2, or day 3,... or day 130, or any other day.  It's not for the OP to prove anything.  It's for the trader to establish (on the balance of probabilities) that the radiator conformed to contract on the day of delivery.  How they could possibly do that is not clear to me.  When the OP discovered the damage is irrelevant.

If it were to come down to a "he said, she said" there's an obvious way to look at it.  Would a court be more likely to believe (1) a consumer with no evidence against them that they are not telling the truth, or (2) a trader seeking to rely on a bogus term in the contract that is unlawful* and the purpose of which is clearly to mislead consumers as to their statutory rights?

I know who I'd be more likely to say I believe...

(All the above assumes this was a consumer purchase and not B2B)

*Insofar as the term could be interpreted as attempting to mislead the consumer as to their stautory rights, could it also possibly be argued that the term amounted to an offence under Regulation 5 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk) as a misleading commercial practice?

I can't see it being as clear cut as that.

As if that was the case, a consumer could damage anything in the first 6 months, then claim it was delivered like that.

powerful_Rogue

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm not sure why people are suggesting either that the OP needs to prove anything, or that the bogus T&C about informing the trader of any damage within 48 hours has any relevance.  Isn't the law clear?

"19  Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods

(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."

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

So the law says that the radiator "must be taken not to have conformed to" contract on the day it was delivered, unless the contrary can be established.  So long as the problem is discovered within 6 months, the law says nothing about the consumer having to inspect the goods on day 1, or day 2, or day 3,... or day 130, or any other day.  It's not for the OP to prove anything.  It's for the trader to establish (on the balance of probabilities) that the radiator conformed to contract on the day of delivery.  How they could possibly do that is not clear to me.  When the OP discovered the damage is irrelevant.

If it were to come down to a "he said, she said" there's an obvious way to look at it.  Would a court be more likely to believe (1) a consumer with no evidence against them that they are not telling the truth, or (2) a trader seeking to rely on a bogus term in the contract that is unlawful* and the purpose of which is clearly to mislead consumers as to their statutory rights?

I know who I'd be more likely to say I believe...

(All the above assumes this was a consumer purchase and not B2B)

*Insofar as the term could be interpreted as attempting to mislead the consumer as to their stautory rights, could it also possibly be argued that the term amounted to an offence under Regulation 5 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk) as a misleading commercial practice?

In which case the OP will have to take them to court. I see it as 50/50.

HillStreetBlues

powerful_Rogue said:

In which case the OP will have to take them to court. I see it as 50/50.

I'm not sure I would rate the OP chances as that good.

A judge would have to decide on the balance of probabilities if item was delivered damaged.

The longer a person has the item, the more probable it will seem that the item was damaged in their care (even if it wasn't).

powerful_Rogue

HillStreetBlues said:

powerful_Rogue said:

In which case the OP will have to take them to court. I see it as 50/50.

I'm not sure I would rate the OP chances as that good.

A judge would have to decide on the balance of probabilities if item was delivered damaged.

The longer a person has the item, the more probable it will seem that the item was damaged in their care (even if it wasn't).

I was feeling generous!

Any damage to the packaging OP?