Time limit to reporting damaged/faulty goods?

2

Comments

  • bris
    bris Posts: 10,548 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Practice and theory are 2 separate things. In theory yes the consumer has the 6 month rule in their favour unless the retailer can prove otherwise.


    Now we are in that situation where practice kicks in. The retailer now claims accidental damage, so as far as they are concerned has proved otherwise as it's 3 months old, as they should. This puts the onus back on the consumer as they are stating 3 months is too long to ever consider damaged on delivery.


    It now goes to court so who win's? Well it's 50/50 and could go either way. Maybe the fact it wasn't ready to get fitted for 3 months would go in their favour, maybe the person hearing the case would agree 3 months is more than enough time to check for damage and agree with the retailer.


    It's not cut and dried in the consumers favour, but they have a chance.
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,475 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    edited 7 May 2018 at 8:33PM
    Then why does unholyangel suggest that he would need to prove it by showing when he had booked a fitter?
    Unholyangel can of course speak for herself, but I would suggest that perhaps the point she was making is that if the OP can show that there was a good reason for not unpacking the thing then that would be in the OP's favour.
  • KeithP wrote: »
    Unholyangel can of course speak for herself, but I would suggest that perhaps the point she was making is that if the OP can show that there was a good reason for not unpacking the thing then that would be in the OP's favour.

    Why have you just picked that one part of the comment to answer? Don't you agree that if you are correct in what you say is the application of the law, anyone could send back ANY item which they broke within six months and put the onus on the manufacturer to prove it was broken on purchase? Do you think the law does work like this? I don't, but am willing to be persuaded if you can show examples.

    I don't for a minute suggest that the OP won't be able to get a refund in this case but I don't believe citing that legislation will be an automatic win, or everyone would be doing it, all the time, fraudulently. Every dropped and broken mobile phone screen would be being returned with "it was like that when I got it; prove it wasn't".
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,475 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Why have you just picked that one part of the comment to answer?
    Simply because I thought that was the only question you asked.

    Having re-read your post, I now see you also asked:
    Have there been successful cases of this type?
    Sorry, I have no idea.
  • LABMAN
    LABMAN Posts: 1,659 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Is there any good reason not to unpack and examine stuff you buy for damage and then repack it until it's needed? Seems a reasonable routine course of action to me.
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 8 May 2018 at 8:46AM
    KeithP wrote: »
    Simply because I thought that was the only question you asked.

    Having re-read your post, I now see you also asked:

    Sorry, I have no idea.

    You don't seem to want to address the question of whether your interpretation of the law would result in an absurd situation. It would, wouldn't it? I mean, maybe it does. But you seem to insist that it does without wanting to acknowledge it.

    The fact that you acknowledge that you have no idea whether the law has ever been applied in the way that you insist it should be is a good move forward, though.
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,142 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    What does the warranty say?
  • prowla wrote: »
    What does the warranty say?

    Pretty sure nothing about replacing it if it gets dropped and broken.
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,863 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Why have you just picked that one part of the comment to answer? Don't you agree that if you are correct in what you say is the application of the law, anyone could send back ANY item which they broke within six months and put the onus on the manufacturer to prove it was broken on purchase? Do you think the law does work like this? I don't, but am willing to be persuaded if you can show examples.

    I don't for a minute suggest that the OP won't be able to get a refund in this case but I don't believe citing that legislation will be an automatic win, or everyone would be doing it, all the time, fraudulently. Every dropped and broken mobile phone screen would be being returned with "it was like that when I got it; prove it wasn't".

    Okay I'll try remember all the points you've made since my reply.

    1) The OP also said there was no damage to the tray or packaging. I'm also sure "it looks like it has been bashed" doesn't carry the weight you think it does when its made by someone who doesn't have the skills or experience necessary to make that diagnosis.

    2) The legislation itself says its only where the presumption is incompatible with how they fail to conform - nothing about this lack of conformity is incompatible with the presumption. It may have other possibilities (such as damaged by the OP), but its not incompatible.

    3) No I wasn't saying that the OP would have to prove it was inherently faulty. I was saying that OP would be able to give their story credibility with supporting evidence if it was called into question. A retailer should always consider each claim - they should never be trying to avoid liability by quoting time limitations that try to override statute.

    4) In the example you use above, you're perhaps overlooking that the phone will be activated & used until they damage it. Theres also the possibility the phone came with a screen protector which was applied by the customer after receiving the phone but before the damage happened.

    5) If it had been damaged in OP's care, it would have to be after it was removed from the packaging. So are you telling me you believe the following to be a likely scenario? The OP removed it from the packaging and it was perfectly fine, they eventually damaged it and then decided to put it back in the packaging and let a fitter come out even though he knew they wouldn't be able to install a damaged tray?
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 8 May 2018 at 4:21PM
    Okay I'll try remember all the points you've made since my reply.

    1) The OP also said there was no damage to the tray or packaging. I'm also sure "it looks like it has been bashed" doesn't carry the weight you think it does when its made by someone who doesn't have the skills or experience necessary to make that diagnosis.

    I am working on the assumption it has been damaged because that is all we have been told. Again, as I have already said, if that's wrong, it's a different matter.


    2) The legislation itself says its only where the presumption is incompatible with how they fail to conform - nothing about this lack of conformity is incompatible with the presumption. It may have other possibilities (such as damaged by the OP), but its not incompatible.

    That's just an assertion.

    3) No I wasn't saying that the OP would have to prove it was inherently faulty. I was saying that OP would be able to give their story credibility with supporting evidence if it was called into question. A retailer should always consider each claim - they should never be trying to avoid liability by quoting time limitations that try to override statute.

    But they shouldn't have to if what your first said was correct.

    4) In the example you use above, you're perhaps overlooking that the phone will be activated & used until they damage it. Theres also the possibility the phone came with a screen protector which was applied by the customer after receiving the phone but before the damage happened.

    Mobile phones were just one example.

    5) If it had been damaged in OP's care, it would have to be after it was removed from the packaging. So are you telling me you believe the following to be a likely scenario? The OP removed it from the packaging and it was perfectly fine, they eventually damaged it and then decided to put it back in the packaging and let a fitter come out even though he knew they wouldn't be able to install a damaged tray?


    I believe the likely scenario to be the one the OP says happened. I believe they should pursue it. I just don't believe that the legislation gives them an automatic win unless the retailer proves it arrived undamaged, which is what you originally said. You don't seem to be saying that any more either, which is why you are constructing a plausible case the OP can put to the retailer. If what you claimed was true, he would not need such a case. Your initial contention was that a court would side with him immediately as long as the retailer couldn't prove it arrived undamaged. I don't believe this to be the case, and I don't think you do any more either. However I think the circumstances of this particular case mean that he should definitely try pushing further for a replacement.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.9K Life & Family
  • 247.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards