Anyone hot on consumer rights - damaged toilet and company refusing to replace

[OTheHugeManatee]

Genuinely not sure if IABU under law or not. I ordered a toilet and cistern from Victoria Plum which delivered end January. Like an idiot I didn't check everything when it arrived and have now discovered that one cistern is cracked.

Victoria Plum are refusing to replace the item, because they claim that the Consumer Rights Act gives you only 30 days to reject damaged goods and after that it's manufacturing faults only that can be reported after up to six months.

Is this correct? Do I really have no leg to stand on? As it is I have a useless toilet and am feeling pretty fucking pissed off.

I'm reading through the Consumer Rights Act and I just don't see that they are correct in this - there is no provision that I can see, that damage must be reported within 30 days.

according to this you may not get a refund (after 30 days) but you should get a replacement (up to 6 months)

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Public/Campaigns/cra/ConsumerRightsSummary-GoodsOL.pdf

it's not very clear is it? have you tried posting on the Monsavingexpert forum?

www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

Argue that it was meant to last a reasonable amount of time. My DH brought me a pandora bangle as a present and he had it a month before he gave it to me (bday not just random with holding). It broke 2 months later. They offered me a refund and I argued this and got full refund. I refused replacement as it was from online retailer and I refused to buy from them again without being able to see the quality of goods.

Hope it helps

That's what I make of it ghosty. No refunds after 30 days but a replacement, yes.

Going to try money saving expert.

I've had cause to read the consumer rights act a lot this week.

I'm pretty sure you have the right to a non-defective replacement. I think the "manufacturing faults only" is a red herring of theirs.

In theory you are still entitled to a replacement/repair at this stage. Is the company implying/suggesting that the cistern might have been damaged after delivery? Is there any other information you can give them to show this isn't the case? (Did the delivery person/people bring the goods to wherever they are now and was the damage not apparent until you unwrapped the items? If yes, that might help your case.)

Manatee doesn't have to prove she didn't cause the damage. So long as she's had it less than 6 months Victoria Plumb have to replace.

That's what I understood too from reading the CRA today theambler. They are talking bollocks basically.

This sort of bullshit makes me so angry

I have called and requested a manager call me back. Anyone got good tips on escalating this to get results? They can't just make up a policy that supersedes the CRA.

Yes. Just tell them they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically Chapter 2, Section 9, that the goods are not of satisfactory quality since they are damaged. Provide a photo.

Say you therefore exercise Your right to replacement of the goods as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Put it in email.

When the manager calls, i probably wouldn't bother arguing the toss over the phone. Just ask him for the appropriate email address to send a formal letter regarding your requirements as per the Consumer Rights Act.

Is the cistern fitted or is it still sat there. it makes a difference because the satisfactory quality will only come into play if the cistern has been fitted. Give trading standards a ring about this one because it is more tricky and they can advise you of the correct way to proceed and the correct piece of legislation.

Theambler
Manatee doesn't have to prove she didn't cause the damage. So long as she's had it less than 6 months Victoria Plumb have to replace.

What about Chapter 2, item 29, Passing of Risk, in cases where goods might not have been defective prior to delivery?

Fascicle - yes, that caught my eye too. But I think the passing of risk bit is really about the trader not being able to avoid responsibility for the goods once purchased but not yet received, rather than saying that as soon as goods are inside the customer's front door then it's all the customers risk.

So I don't think the passing of risk subsection trumps the 6 month rule about defects.

I had this with Victoria plumb. Within an hour of it being on Facebook and Twitter it was sorted.

I did the same thing with a delivery of tiles - opened it a couple of months after delivery to find half of them broken. Company was happy to replace them - tiles and toilets are the kind up thing you leave packaged up until you're ready to use them.

Dawndonna's got a good point. Big companies hate bad press. Shame them into action!

My understanding of the consumer rights act is that it's basically the same as the sale of goods, just with added consumer rights. The 30 day thing is called the short term right to reject and means that if goods are faulty within the first 30 days you can reject them.

After that you have the right to repair or replacement. If this is not done, or not done within a reasonable time with out significant inconvenience then you have the right to reject.

If goods are found to be faulty within the first 6 months then the burden of proof lies with the seller to prove they were not faulty when sold.

The consumer rights act enhances consumer rights from what was in the sale of goods act, rather than restrict them as Victoria plum are trying to do.

Good luck

Thanks everyone. Genuinely wasn't sure if IWBU but it sounds like I'm not.

Unsurprisingly I did not get a call from a manager yesterday. I will be writing a formal letter to them as per this thread.

I reckon Victoria Plum's illegal returns policy is based on the assumption that most people who buy are on fitting schedules and can't fight a company indefinitely for their rights as they just need sanitaryware to be fitted. But I'm midway through a larger renov project and have at least one more toilet to go, so I'm happy to replace the faulty toilet with another from a different supplier for the immediate need, and then fight Victoria Plum for a replacement on principle. They can't just break the law like this.

Theambler
So I don't think the passing of risk subsection trumps the 6 month rule about defects.

It's not a case of passing of risk trumping the right to replacement/repair of defective goods or vice versa. The two cover different things. Whilst the responsibility for proof lies with the supplier for the first 6 months, and thereafter with the customer, that does not mean that the supplier is automatically responsible for damage to goods that might occur once in possession of the customer during the first 6 months. There will be some cases where e.g. goods are not defective but damage occurs through the customer's handling of goods. (To be clear: I'm talking generally rather than referencing Manatee's case here.)

I ordered a sink from VP which turned out to have a defect in the porcelain so that it leaked when filled up to the overflow. I didn't realise until after it was installed, more than two months after delivery. I called and they apologised and sent a replacement which arrived next morning.

Admittedly in my case it was a manufacturing fault not damage, but they only had my word for that. They didn't collect the old one - they couldn't as it was installed in the bathroom at the time.

I hate to suggest lying but if I were in the OP's position in future I'd be tempted to call them and imply something was defective rather than damaged. Their response seems better!