Item not as described - false advertising advice

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

How is the OP to claim for improper packaging if they have no photos of the condition of the delivery?

The packaging and pots are a moot point, OP isn’t complaining about either, they are complaining the plant isn’t the correct size. 

The fact the box took a bit of a battering in transit is irrelevant to the fact to the plants are too small.

You seem to be misunderstanding the information in the OP?

PHK said:

This is a classic example of woodenly quoting legislation.
 

I think your post is a classic example of completely ignoring the legislation and posting what is thought to be right by personal standards.

The legislation states the starting point is that within 6 months it must be taken the goods did not conform. 

In order to counter that starting position there needs to be something to demonstrate otherwise.

Whether it’s a plant, a broken TV screen, some shattered tiles, a dented fridge, or a garment with a failing seam you could argue any of these has been caused by the customer or circumstances and you are basically completely ignoring the legislation. 

I did also say unless OP is being accused of being dishonest as….

PHK said 

 

It’s not like a TV that sits there unchanging. 

These are living products. They will have changed/grown/withered. Whilst the OP was on holiday they were not tended too. 

…..Plants don’t typically shrink by 1-2 foot in the space of a holiday, you could say OP snapped it or pruned it or a mouse nibbled it and the top half died but can we not say the same about a TV?

A TV could sit next to a wood burner suffering from excessive heat causing premature failure, we can run endless hypotheticals on any item in any situation.

I would suggest 30cm off a 60cm plant should either have signs of damage/neglect or signs of being pruned, i.e something to demonstrate otherwise. 

Just to add, unless this was a very expensive plant, if I were the OP I’d just plant it and leave a factual review somewhere the company can’t delete it. 

PHK

Legislation is subject to interpretation by a court (for various reasons e.g. it's interaction with other legislation, definitions , intentions etc) . The courts opinion if you like. 

Too many times people post small snippets of legislation here and completely overlook that it's not standalone or even if it would apply. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

Legislation is subject to interpretation by a court (for various reasons e.g. it's interaction with other legislation, definitions , intentions etc) . The courts opinion if you like. 

Too many times people post small snippets of legislation here and completely overlook that it's not standalone or even if it would apply. 

I understand this which is why over the years I've read the credible guidance, various cases from the higher courts and use that information along side what it says in the regs.  

I agree there are points which could go either way based on opinion but in this instance the word must was used by those who wrote the legislation, not may, could, should, but must which is definitive word showing the intention of the legislation. 

Ultimately as I've said before I assume very few posts here go to court, giving the poster the info on their rights to argue their case with the retailer or just knowing they are in the right is the main value most would take away from this forum I'd imagine.

Ultimately I would imagine anyone who buys something that is sold as being 2-3 foot tall and turns up only a foot tall would expect that sored out and as I say the regs are clear in my view that burden of proof must fall on the trader. 

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ultimately I would imagine anyone who buys something that is sold as being 2-3 foot tall and turns up only a foot tall would expect that sored out and as I say the regs are clear in my view that burden of proof must fall on the trader. 

Which is fine.
Given OP has never come back & answered the question on the height of the plant. Is that fully grown or as supplied. Bit of a moot point.
As we have no idea if it was as described or not 🤷‍♀️

DarwinsFinest

Thank you to all for your replies and in order to answer some questions:

Being a newbie I am not able to post links or photos, however, the website is:
Gardening Express 
and the item is:
pair of fargesia clumping umbrella fountain bamboo plants (Product ref: DEAL11278)

I am fully aware that the plants were not going to arrive and look the same as the pictures. However, the listing clearly states 2-3 ft.  In addition, looking at the review photos, there are some huge variations in the size of the plants that people have received.

Stupidly, I didn't take pictures of the packing upon arrival.  I had pots with soil and feed already in place and they were planted upon arrival because I was leaving for holiday that same day.  My parents were looking after to my cats whilst away and tended to the garden, inlcuding these plants whilst I was away.

Vectis

Ok, it's bamboo we're talking about here, and the chances are that in the week or two since the op received them and went on holiday, they've probably grown the required 1 foot.

If they haven't, they undoubtably will have within the next month or so.

Is it really worth complaining about?

Alderbank

It's fargesia bamboo we're talking about.

The special feature of fargesia, and the reason people pay a premium for it, is that it is a clumping, slow growing variety that forms a neat bush.

sheramber

As you have repotted them how can you prove these are the plants that you were sent?