Faulty bath

Piggyfeet

around 35 days ago my son took delivery of a bath he had bought online. His plumber has opened the box and found out it has a cracked down in it. The company he bought it from have stated as it’s over 30 days it’s right to a refund or a replacement it’s not accepted. Obviously he didn’t want to open it without the plumber there but this has been done either in transit although the box looked intact or it has been done in manufacture.

where does he stand legally to get a replacement? He’s not asking for a refund just the same item.

thanks

eskbanker

The supplier can't unilaterally override statutory rights, so the CRA right to repair or replacement applies regardless of what they assert…

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23

twopenny

You have a year.

Not fit for purpose. Damaged. Plenty of reasons.

This may be easier to read than the government site but both should be read

https://www.uklegalguides.com/how-to-claim-compensation-for-damaged-goods-bought-online/

The trouble with online is was it from a well known company or a random supplier. The first you have a range of ways to contact and a set of ways to persuade this. The second if there is only email it's going to be hard to demand your rights.

Ectophile

Who ordered the bath? If your son ordered it, then consumer rights override the contract. If the plumber ordered it, then that's a trade deal and consumer rights don't apply.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82184180#Comment_82184180

"You have a year…"

The OP has "a year" to do what?

Piggyfeet

it was my son that ordered it from bathroom mountain

They wouldn’t deal with him on the phone. They asked him to send photo was in which is right but said he probably wouldn’t get a refund because it was over 30 days. Thank you very much for the information I will pass it on.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6688377/faulty-bath

s19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that any faults that become apparent within 6 months of delivery of goods are legally deemed to have been present at purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.

This means that unless the seller can prove on the balance of probabilities that (1) the bath was in good condition when it was delivered to your son, and (2) that it must have become damaged after it was delivered to him, then the seller must either repair or replace at no cost to your son

I don't see how the seller could prove either (1) or (2) on the balance of probabilties.

The only possible complicating factors are whether (i) the plumber bought the bath and not your son, or (ii) your son bought from a seller who purports to sell only to trade customers and not to consumers.

Aylesbury_Duck

Another example of why it's better to get a tradesperson to supply and fit, then a damaged product is their problem to deal with, not yours.

Nevertheless, if your son was a genuine consumer (and didn't falsely register a trade account, for example), the retailer can't wriggle out of its responsibilities if it shipped a broken bath or its courier damaged it in transit. The challenge will be that they will contend it was damaged while in his care.

eskbanker

The challenge will be that they will contend it was damaged while in his care.

But, as mentioned in the previous post, the burden of proof is on them to show this, i.e. 'contending' isn't enough.

Alderbank

The test for a consumer in the CRA is nothing to do with whether your son tells porkies or not.

It's a test of fact - whether in buying that bath he was acting (not claiming or pretending to act) for purposes wholly or mainly outside his trade, business, craft or profession.

The burden of proof is on the seller.

What's your son's job?

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82184360#Comment_82184360

Agreed, but contending will string things out long enough that some consumers will give up.