Damaged Sink

[OOCH]

Hello,

I ordered a sink online that got delivered while I was out. I opened the box and had a quick look and everything looked fine so I stored it in my garage for a month until my kitchen was about to be done. I unpacked it properly this weekend and noticed it has been bent out of proportion at one end but this was hidden by the polystyrene packaging. I've contacted the retailer but they said they can't do anything because I didn't inspect it and inform them within 14 days. I've had a look at consumer rights act which seems to say that I have 6 months to get a replacement if the goods aren't of satisfactory standard. Does anybody know who is right?

Thanks, OOCH

[mcflurry]

Did you pay with a credit card, and did it cost over £100?

[OOCH]

Yes mate

[FurtiveFreddy]

You are correct. I had exactly the same issue. Retailer tried to use the excuse that they had put 14 days in their terms. Problem is, they can't make up their own terms when it comes to consumer law.

I threatened them with a fast track claim and sent them a letter before action. Hey presto, they coughed up the refund and interest. They were just trying it on, but I'm sure they convince a lot of people (wrongly) that they are in the right.

I wonder if it's the same mob I had a problem with...

I should add that I needed a refund because the damaged sink I had was the last one in stock and the manufacturer discontinued them, so it couldn't be replaced.

You are entitled to a replacement, or you can get a chargeback done through your credit card company if they still refuse.

Edited by FurtiveFreddy on Monday 19th September 15:40

[OOCH]

Thanks for that, I'll give that a go. The company are RTD - Retail Trade and Domestic.

[FurtiveFreddy]

Different one, but I suspect a lot of them try it on to some extent

[OOCH]

Yeah, I'd expect them to try it on. I just hope they don't try to drag it out too long

[V8RX7]

OOCH said:

I stored it in my garage for a month until my kitchen was about to be done.

it has been bent out of proportion at one end

I didn't inspect it and inform them within 14 days

I have 6 months to get a replacement if the goods aren't of satisfactory standard.

If it is damaged then they could reasonably suggest that has happened during your storage - if you sold an item and the seller told you 6 months later that it was damaged what would you say ?

If it is a manufacturing defect then you are correct that you have at least 6 months - usually far longer.

[Spudler]

V8RX7 said:

If it is damaged then they could reasonably suggest that has happened during your storage - if you sold an item and the seller told you 6 months later that it was damaged what would you say ?

But this is PH, the 3rd party is always the .

[OOCH]

V8RX7 said:

If it is damaged then they could reasonably suggest that has happened during your storage - if you sold an item and the seller told you 6 months later that it was damaged what would you say ?

If it is a manufacturing defect then you are correct that you have at least 6 months - usually far longer.

They did try and suggest just that so I looked at the consumer goods act and it states that the seller must prove that the damage occurred after it was delivered within the first 6 months. After 6 months then the burden of proof is on myself to prove I didn't. I don't know how they could prove I damaged the sink (as i didn't) but I'm happy for them to do any sort of investigation they see fit. It's not a manufacturing defect, It looks as though it's been dropped from the top of a storage rack or something to bend it as much as it has.

[V8RX7]

OOCH said:

V8RX7 said:

If it is damaged then they could reasonably suggest that has happened during your storage - if you sold an item and the seller told you 6 months later that it was damaged what would you say ?

If it is a manufacturing defect then you are correct that you have at least 6 months - usually far longer.

They did try and suggest just that so I looked at the consumer goods act and it states that the seller must prove that the damage occurred after it was delivered within the first 6 months. After 6 months then the burden of proof is on myself to prove I didn't. I don't know how they could prove I damaged the sink (as i didn't) but I'm happy for them to do any sort of investigation they see fit. It's not a manufacturing defect, It looks as though it's been dropped from the top of a storage rack or something to bend it as much as it has.

I think it means "fault" rather than damage.

If I buy a car and it gets keyed down one side I can't take it back for a respray despite them being unable to "prove" it was done after sale. It assumes any obvious damage is picked up at time of sale or shortly thereafter. The most likely suspect for damage is the Courier which presumably you signed for and you normally get 24hrs to report damage.

[FurtiveFreddy]

OOCH said:

They did try and suggest just that so I looked at the consumer goods act and it states that the seller must prove that the damage occurred after it was delivered within the first 6 months. After 6 months then the burden of proof is on myself to prove I didn't. I don't know how they could prove I damaged the sink (as i didn't) but I'm happy for them to do any sort of investigation they see fit. It's not a manufacturing defect, It looks as though it's been dropped from the top of a storage rack or something to bend it as much as it has.

The only way they could prove it would be if they took photos of the sink when they delivered it, the same way AO does now with white goods deliveries.
Otherwise, they have to comply with the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and replace it (or refund if they can't replace), as they won't be able to prove it wasn't damaged during storage or transit.

If you get to the point where you need to threaten them with legal action I can forward you the letter I sent for my sink.

[FurtiveFreddy]

V8RX7 said:

I think it means "fault" rather than damage.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. It doesn't distinguish between faulty and damaged as such.

[V8RX7]

FurtiveFreddy said:

The only way they could prove it would be if they took photos of the sink when they delivered it,

the same way AO does now with white goods deliveries.

Otherwise, they have to comply with the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and replace it (or refund if they can't replace),

as they won't be able to prove it wasn't damaged during storage or transit.

Or get you to sign for the Courier that it's in good condition and give you 24hrs / 14 days to inspect it.

I've had 3 AO deliveries of white goods in recent months - no pictures were taken and the last two, the boxes weren't opened at the time of delivery as I was taking them elsewhere.

I thought the SOGA was superceeded by Consumer Rights Act 2015

Except by your signature.

[OOCH]

FurtiveFreddy said:

The only way they could prove it would be if they took photos of the sink when they delivered it, the same way AO does now with white goods deliveries.
Otherwise, they have to comply with the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and replace it (or refund if they can't replace), as they won't be able to prove it wasn't damaged during storage or transit.

If you get to the point where you need to threaten them with legal action I can forward you the letter I sent for my sink.

Thanks for that, it looks like it's heading that way as they never replied to me yesterday. I'll send them another mail asking if they have thought about what I asked and if I don't get a response I'll threaten them with legal action.

[OOCH]

V8RX7 said:

Or get you to sign for the Courier that it's in good condition and give you 24hrs / 14 days to inspect it.

I've had 3 AO deliveries of white goods in recent months - no pictures were taken and the last two, the boxes weren't opened at the time of delivery as I was taking them elsewhere.

I thought the SOGA was superceeded by Consumer Rights Act 2015

Except by your signature.

They left the parcel in my porch so I never got to sign for it. The SOGA has been superceeded by the consumer rights act but it says the same thing; Goods must be of satisfactory quality including freedom from minor defects. If it is established that the goods did not conform on the day of delivery then you are entitled to an immediate refund within the first 14 days or repair/replacement within the first 6 months if you don't make a claim in the first 14 days. I just want the replacement.

[FurtiveFreddy]

V8RX7 said:

Or get you to sign for the Courier that it's in good condition and give you 24hrs / 14 days to inspect it.

I've had 3 AO deliveries of white goods in recent months - no pictures were taken and the last two, the boxes weren't opened at the time of delivery as I was taking them elsewhere.

I thought the SOGA was superceeded by Consumer Rights Act 2015

Except by your signature.

In my case, the retailer initially tried to use the excuse that their Ts & Cs stipulated only a 14 day money back guarantee and that under the Distance Selling Regulations Act 2000, they were only required to offer a 'reasonable' amount of time to check the goods for damage.

I had to point out to them that DSR no longer applied in UK law and that the Consumer Rights Directive had been in place since 2014 for 'distance selling'

They replied, saying they made a 'typing error' and that they meant the SOGA 1979 but that anyway their 'reasonable amount of time' for checking damage was 30 days.

So then I hit them with the fact that the SOGA applies regardless of whatever their terms say and also that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 make it clear that any contract term that attempts to exclude or restrict my statutory rights will be unenforceable.

They tried one more time to say their Ts & Cs trumped UK law so I sent them a letter before action which body-swerved the spotty herbert in Customer Support I had been exchanging emails with and led to an immediate cave-in and refund.

No doubt they had been trained to respond this way to a refund request and no doubt it works in their favour most of the time. I could also have reported them to Trading Standards for having the cheek to publish misleading and illegal Ts & Cs, but I became bored by then and decided to do something more interesting instead.