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 2
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 8th May 18, 4:15 PM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    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.

    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?
    Originally posted by unholyangel

    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.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 08-05-2018 at 4:21 PM.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 8th May 18, 5:11 PM
    • 12,514 Posts
    • 9,806 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    So if you think its a likely scenario, why shouldn't the retailer?

    Also, that isn't what I said (and nor did I say anything about a court - much less that they'd side with him automatically). Here's my original post again just to save any confusion:
    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).
    What I am (and have always been) saying is that the retailer should judge each case on its merits and cannot disclaim liability using a unfair (and therefore unenforceable) term.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 8th May 18, 7:29 PM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    So if you think its a likely scenario, why shouldn't the retailer?
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    The retailer might think it's a likely scenario. I never for a minute implied they wouldn't, or that the OP's case was weak, or anything of the sort. I really don't know what you are reading.

    What I said was that citing that particular legislation at them wouldn't help. And I don't think it will. I don't think you do any more either, because you suggest they support it by making a plausible case, which they would not have to do if that legislation was relevant. If that legislation were relevant then the last thing the retailer would have to do is judge each case on its merits. Unless they had proof of delivery in intact state, they would have to refund.


    Also, that isn't what I said (and nor did I say anything about a court - much less that they'd side with him automatically). Here's my original post again just to save any confusion:

    What I am (and have always been) saying is that the retailer should judge each case on its merits and cannot disclaim liability using a unfair (and therefore unenforceable) term.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    No. That's what the first paragraph you quote says.

    The second paragraph states that they should tell the retailer that if they can't prove the object wasn't broken on delivery the law states it will assumed to have so been. That's not right. That's all I ever took issue with. It's you that has clouded the issue by introducing other aspects of the case as though I have taken issue with them.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 9th May 18, 1:59 PM
    • 12,514 Posts
    • 9,806 Thanks
    unholyangel
    The retailer might think it's a likely scenario. I never for a minute implied they wouldn't, or that the OP's case was weak, or anything of the sort. I really don't know what you are reading.

    What I said was that citing that particular legislation at them wouldn't help. And I don't think it will. I don't think you do any more either, because you suggest they support it by making a plausible case, which they would not have to do if that legislation was relevant. If that legislation were relevant then the last thing the retailer would have to do is judge each case on its merits. Unless they had proof of delivery in intact state, they would have to refund.



    No. That's what the first paragraph you quote says.

    The second paragraph states that they should tell the retailer that if they can't prove the object wasn't broken on delivery the law states it will assumed to have so been. That's not right. That's all I ever took issue with. It's you that has clouded the issue by introducing other aspects of the case as though I have taken issue with them.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    No, I didn't suggest that. I said if it was called into question then they'd be able to back up their story with supporting evidence. Thats not the same thing as saying the OP needs to make a plausible case! You're taking what I say and reading far too much into it rather than just taking it at face value.

    As for the rest, again all I said was that if the lack of conformity that becomes apparent in the first 6 months would be assumed to be inherent and its for them to prove otherwise (and therefore they can't disclaim liability after 3 days). Would you care to explain whats wrong about that?
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 9th May 18, 4:48 PM
    • 2,644 Posts
    • 4,174 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser

    As for the rest, again all I said was that if the lack of conformity that becomes apparent in the first 6 months would be assumed to be inherent and its for them to prove otherwise (and therefore they can't disclaim liability after 3 days). Would you care to explain whats wrong about that?
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    Because, as I said from the start, the law which you are quoting will not be held to apply in the case of accidental damage. If it were, then nothing would stop anyone returning anything they broke within six months and simply saying "prove it wasn't broken when I got it".

    As courts will not, in my opinion, uphold the idea that all accidental damage is inherent unless the retailer could prove otherwise, there is no point the OP quoting this at them as it is inapplicable.

    3 days is probably too tight a term and is unsustainable. However, I never expressed an opinion on that either. I just said
    "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.",
    nothing about the 3 day liability. I bolded the part of your post I replied to; and it didn't include that. You have constantly, and are still, desperately trying to stretch the parameters of the debate.

    As I say, if I am wrong on this, I will happily be convinced, but I would have to see cases where courts have ruled as you say they will. (I know you said nothing about courts, but without courts, there is no law. If you quote a law at someone you are implicitly saying "a court will rule in my favour based on this law".)


    I have made my position as clear as I can. The point of difference, if we still have one, can only be that you think the law you quoted applies to accidental damage and will be so ruled by a court. Unless either of us can prove that to be the case, or not the case, there is no point continuing as I have taken issue with nothing but this one narrow point.

    I hope you understand now; I am not going to say anything else on the matter unless you have information relating to that one distinct point - I will not simply outline my position again or reply to unrelated digressions.
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

370Posts Today

3,824Users online

Martin's Twitter