Rights regarding damaged goods after 30 days

liannalondon

I bought a laptop from Laptops Direct and due to circumstances beyond my control I did not open it within the 30 days. I then discovered the screen was cracked. They have tried to tell me because it is damage rather than a fault I do not have a right to a repair or replacement as I did not report it within 30 days. Can anyone confirm if this is so? I have sent screenshots proving that damage is classed as faulty, quoted the Consumer Rights Act, all this culminated in a phone call from the case manager talking over me and saying I was incorrect, and slamming the phone down on me when I asked to speak to someone more senior. He was very confrontational. I told him they were in breach of contract. Am I right and if so where do I go from here? Unfortunately I bought with a chase debit card.

eskbanker

liannalondon said:

I have sent screenshots proving that damage is classed as faulty

Screenshots of what?  A cracked screen is obviously a fault, but in itself that says nothing about who or what caused it, and when, so have you obtained some sort of expert report stating that it was a manufacturing defect rather than post-delivery damage by the recipient?

liannalondon

Screenshots of sections of the consumer rights act. The laptop was a refurbishment. The cracks are inside the screen, not on the surface, plus if anyone checked the laptop they would see it had not been accessed since it left the factory.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

The Consumer Rights Act doesn't deal with faults, it deals with goods which do not conform to the contract, that may be a "fault", it may be damage, it may be a safety issue, so you are correct. 

You'd be entitled to a repair or replacement, if the retailer refuses to do either you'd have to exercise the final right to reject for a refund. 

Within 6 months of the day of delivery burden of proof is on the retailer so it's for them to show you damaged it rather than that's how it was delivered (not sure how that would be possible really) and if they don't repair/replace and you exercise the final right to reject again within 6 months a full refund is due.

Ultimately if an agreement can't be reached it's a case of letter before action and then small claims.

@born_again might comment on what options there are with a chargeback in this situation. 

born_again

Would be a tough one. Given the time between purchase & report. 
You could ask Chase & see what they say.

Was there any damage to packaging?
Was laptop still in protective sleeve & screen covered in protective plastic?

TELLIT01

Does a contract term stating that damage must be reported within x days of receipt have no value in law?  Genuine question as I don't know the answer.

RefluentBeans

TELLIT01 said:

Does a contract term stating that damage must be reported within x days of receipt have no value in law?  Genuine question as I don't know the answer.

I think it’s the balance of probabilities that the court relies on. If you report damage within 3 days of receiving the product (but the contract says within 24 hours), the 24 hour window would be likely considered unfair and that the product did arrive faulty. 5 months 27 days after receipt would likely not be considered that the product arrived faulty. 

I think it’s fair to expect consumers to check for damages from transit within a reasonable time, as drops are plausible from the retailer, the courier (acting on behalf of the retailer) and the consumer. The longer the time goes on, the more likely the latter is responsible. 

So whilst the ‘report damage within X days’ is not a get out of free jail card for the retailer, they can certainly point to the fact that no damage was reported and this would’ve been very obvious. It’s a tricky one, and think it Varys case by case. Can see why a phone may be expected to checked pretty much upon arrival, whilst a kitchen counter may not be thoroughly checked until installation. 

OP has a fairly good case by saying that they didn’t check the laptop until recently and having the logs to show that. The issue still remains in his convincing that is to a court, but I think it’s fairly convincing that people don’t check the unit until they login for the first time, and that the first power cycle outside of the warehouse was recently. But the argument that the retailer may use will also say that the OP could’ve dropped it at any point and this doesn’t show they didn’t drop it. But that is certainly a less convincing argument (in my book). 

Ultimately I think if this got taken to court, the OP would have a more compelling case. But I also can’t imagine it’ll get to court - I think the retailer likely would settle prior to this, even if it’s just a repair or replacement. 

PHK

I'm not convinced that the OP would have a very good case in court. In  the circumstances it would depend on how the OP presents themselves and the evidence they bring. In a case like this, and in the absence of compelling evidence the judge will look at what is most likely to have happened. 

 There are a number of things that would count against them. Two being the ham-fisted way they've approached it so far without really understanding their rights and secondly not inspecting the goods on arrival. I think in the face of the retailers refusal, the OP is going to need a report from a competent person proving when the laptop was turned on (taken from the logs)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

TELLIT01 said:

Does a contract term stating that damage must be reported within x days of receipt have no value in law?  Genuine question as I don't know the answer.

There are terms on the "Grey List" which can be tested for fairness, there are also terms on the "Black List" which are always classed as unfair.

The blacklisted terms include the trader attempting to exclude liability for something that the consumer has a statutory right to, including Part 1 (Goods, Services, Digital Content) of the CRA.

I think any term regarding x amount of days would be dismissed as unfair and the requirements under the Act would apply.

PHK said:

I'm not convinced that the OP would have a very good case in court. In  the circumstances it would depend on how the OP presents themselves and the evidence they bring. In a case like this, and in the absence of compelling evidence the judge will look at what is most likely to have happened. 

 The wording in the the CRA is:

(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.

The use of the word must here shows that the scales are already tipped towards the consumer's favour and the trader requires something to tip them the other way, rather than starting from a neutral position and seeing which way those scales tip. 

If you have a car delivered and the trader takes a bunch of photos of it on your drive you can't later claim there was a scratch on the body work as the photos would establish otherwise. 

I don't see any way a trader who posts something to a consumer can show it wasn't damaged in transit.

PHK said:

the OP is going to need a report from a competent person proving when the laptop was turned on (taken from the logs)

It would be the trader that would require this, they would need to accept the return and then attempt to show the laptop was used sooner than OP claims they opened. 

Burden of proof is reversed  

unforeseen

the OP is going to need a report from a competent person proving when the laptop was turned on (taken from the logs)

There's a wonderful thing in Windows called recovery. It resets the device to the. OOBE state. As it effectively rebuilds the machine from the recovery image then all datestamps on folders etc will be when it was done. No competent person will claim that the dates indicate the first time it was powered up. 

liannalondon

Edit i was right about the trustpilot review. Thanks for everyone's help so far (apart from calling me ham fisted, I have severe ADHD!) I have now received a response on trustpilot apologising and saying they will look into it. I think they just did that to make themselves look good. Before that, this mornings response to me was that the damage was caused by me closing the screen onto something!! Sent them further screenshots from CRA and said I'm sure neither of us wants the hassle of going to court, I know my rights and I'm not letting this go.