Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • moomaloo
    • By moomaloo 7th May 18, 9:35 AM
    • 20Posts
    • 1Thanks
    moomaloo
    Time limit to reporting damaged/faulty goods?
    • #1
    • 7th May 18, 9:35 AM
    Time limit to reporting damaged/faulty goods? 7th May 18 at 9:35 AM
    Hi there. I've spent a while reading the extremely useful guide to consumer rights and would be interested in what others think of this:

    On 16th Feb of this year I ordered a new (and expensive) enamel shower tray from an online bathroom supplies company. I paid £70 for delivery on a palette but, in actuality, the thing was delivered at the beginning of March by a man in a van. Nevertheless, it was extremely well packaged and I thought no more about it.

    The shower tray remained in its packaging in a spare bedroom until I could organise myself and a plumber to fit it.

    I unpackaged it yesterday and, to my horror, there is a substantial part of the enamel missing from one corner. It looks as if it has been bashed at some point, though there is no damage to the packaging and no denting of the tray. (Oh how I wish I'd checked it much earlier...!)

    The supplier tells me that there is nothing they can do about it because they have a policy that it should have been reported within three days of receipt.

    Do I have to accept this or is consumer law on my side? - it appears to me that I retain the right to choose between a repair or replacement (which is all I want) but am I correct or have I learned an expensive lesson here..?

    (I paid by credit card - can they help?)

    Many thanks.
Page 1
    • photome
    • By photome 7th May 18, 9:42 AM
    • 13,275 Posts
    • 8,807 Thanks
    photome
    • #2
    • 7th May 18, 9:42 AM
    • #2
    • 7th May 18, 9:42 AM
    I think you are on a sticky wicket

    look at it from their point of view, you have it for nearly 3 months, you could have caused the damage at any point in that time

    repair or replace is for something that is faulty, can you prove you didnt do it
    • Svein Forkbeard
    • By Svein Forkbeard 7th May 18, 9:57 AM
    • 340 Posts
    • 890 Thanks
    Svein Forkbeard
    • #3
    • 7th May 18, 9:57 AM
    • #3
    • 7th May 18, 9:57 AM
    I have been there with a cistern.

    I think it was my builder that dropped it but I took it on the chin.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • George Michael
    • By George Michael 7th May 18, 11:07 AM
    • 3,118 Posts
    • 4,185 Thanks
    George Michael
    • #4
    • 7th May 18, 11:07 AM
    • #4
    • 7th May 18, 11:07 AM
    I have been there with a cistern.

    I think it was my builder that dropped it but I took it on the chin.
    Originally posted by Svein Forkbeard

    That must have hurt. (unless you have a chin like this):
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 7th May 18, 12:51 PM
    • 12,528 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #5
    • 7th May 18, 12:51 PM
    • #5
    • 7th May 18, 12:51 PM
    Remind the retailer that any term limiting your statutory rights would be unfair and may even amount to a criminal offence.

    Also remind them that any lack of conformity that becomes apparent within the first 6 months is assumed to be inherent unless they prove otherwise. You have 6 years in law to make a claim, therefore they cannot have a term that ends their liability after 3 days (but its considered particularly misleading to try disclaim liability within the first 6 months due to the above).
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 7th May 18, 1:26 PM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #6
    • 7th May 18, 1:26 PM
    • #6
    • 7th May 18, 1:26 PM
    Remind the retailer that any term limiting your statutory rights would be unfair and may even amount to a criminal offence.

    Also remind them that any lack of conformity that becomes apparent within the first 6 months is assumed to be inherent unless they prove otherwise. You have 6 years in law to make a claim, therefore they cannot have a term that ends their liability after 3 days (but its considered particularly misleading to try disclaim liability within the first 6 months due to the above).
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    I very much doubt that can be applied to accidental damage. If it could than anyone could drop anything within six months and claim it was broken when they got it. No retailer could ever prove otherwise.
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 7th May 18, 1:59 PM
    • 10,129 Posts
    • 11,401 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    • #7
    • 7th May 18, 1:59 PM
    • #7
    • 7th May 18, 1:59 PM
    Also remind them that any lack of conformity that becomes apparent within the first 6 months is assumed to be inherent unless they prove otherwise. e).
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    I very much doubt that can be applied to accidental damage. If it could than anyone could drop anything within six months and claim it was broken when they got it. No retailer could ever prove otherwise.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    I would say that is the exact reason for the following:
    (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.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 7th May 18, 3:06 PM
    • 12,528 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #8
    • 7th May 18, 3:06 PM
    • #8
    • 7th May 18, 3:06 PM
    I very much doubt that can be applied to accidental damage. If it could than anyone could drop anything within six months and claim it was broken when they got it. No retailer could ever prove otherwise.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    What evidence is there that it was accidental damage rather than that part of the tray not being (for example) primed properly leading to the enamel coming away?

    Is it only in the consumers possession than goods could be damaged?

    And no, not everyone could claim that. In OP case they will undoubtedly be able to prove that they had a fitter booked for now. Its very common for people to keep things packaged until the installers/fitters get there.

    But none of that changes the fact they cannot have a 3 day time limit for reporting faults or that its particularly misleading to try and disclaim liability within the first 6 months.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 7th May 18, 4:10 PM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #9
    • 7th May 18, 4:10 PM
    • #9
    • 7th May 18, 4:10 PM
    What evidence is there that it was accidental damage rather than that part of the tray not being (for example) primed properly leading to the enamel coming away?
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    The fact that all we have been told is "It looks as if it has been bashed at some point". As far as the company is concerned, that's presumably what he told them and what they reacted to.

    If he now wants to argue that it isn't accidental damage; that's a different kettle of fish, but he doesn't believe that to be the truth.

    And no, not everyone could claim that. In OP case they will undoubtedly be able to prove that they had a fitter booked for now. Its very common for people to keep things packaged until the installers/fitters get there.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    Ok, you said before that the retailer would have to prove it wasn't damaged on delivery - that's impossible. Now you are saying he would have to prove it was. Very different situation.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th May 18, 4:19 PM
    • 8,062 Posts
    • 7,920 Thanks
    KeithP
    The fact that all we have been told is "It looks as if it has been bashed at some point". As far as the company is concerned, that's presumably what he told them and what they reacted to.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    And why not?

    The next question might be "was it bashed before or after delivery to the consumer"?

    Section 19 of the CRA effectively says that any damage found in the first six months following the sale must have been present at the time of the sale unless the seller can prove otherwise.

    But you already know that as Unholyangel's earlier post explains it.


    Ok, you said before that the retailer would have to prove it wasn't damaged on delivery - that's impossible.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Then if the seller cannot prove when it was damaged, then we revert to CRA S19 - it is assumed the goods arrived damaged unless the seller can prove otherwise.
    Last edited by KeithP; 07-05-2018 at 4:23 PM.
    .
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 7th May 18, 4:50 PM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Then if the seller cannot prove when it was damaged, then we revert to CRA S19 - it is assumed the goods arrived damaged unless the seller can prove otherwise.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Then why does unholyangel suggest that he would need to prove it by showing when he had booked a fitter? If what you are saying is correct, there's no need to do anything except send it back and say it's broken.

    The simple fact is that if what he originally said, and what you are saying now, is true then anyone breaking anything can return it and claim it was damaged. The only exceptions would be where a deliberate statement had been made by the buyer that the goods were received in good condition.

    I simply don't believe this is the case. I am not sure damage is a "fault", and I can't imagine this was the intention of the act. It may be so, of course. Have there been successful cases of this type?
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 07-05-2018 at 4:57 PM.
    • bris
    • By bris 7th May 18, 6:22 PM
    • 7,729 Posts
    • 6,715 Thanks
    bris
    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
    • By KeithP 7th May 18, 8:19 PM
    • 8,062 Posts
    • 7,920 Thanks
    KeithP
    Then why does unholyangel suggest that he would need to prove it by showing when he had booked a fitter?
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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.
    Last edited by KeithP; 07-05-2018 at 8:33 PM.
    .
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 8th May 18, 12:13 AM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    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
    • By KeithP 8th May 18, 12:29 AM
    • 8,062 Posts
    • 7,920 Thanks
    KeithP
    Why have you just picked that one part of the comment to answer?
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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
    • By LABMAN 8th May 18, 12:56 AM
    • 872 Posts
    • 1,495 Thanks
    LABMAN
    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
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 8th May 18, 8:43 AM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    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.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 08-05-2018 at 8:46 AM.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 8th May 18, 9:51 AM
    • 9,860 Posts
    • 8,003 Thanks
    prowla
    What does the warranty say?
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 8th May 18, 10:27 AM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    What does the warranty say?
    Originally posted by prowla
    Pretty sure nothing about replacing it if it gets dropped and broken.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 8th May 18, 1:49 PM
    • 12,528 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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".
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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?
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,863Posts Today

7,849Users online

Martin's Twitter