Help Please - Damaged Goods received from WoodFloor Warehouse

[silverfox1961]

It isn't about bending to pressure. It shows that a company will work in the best interest of their customers and this is a one off solution to this problem. This doesn't mean that you have to treat other customers the same, just that you did in this case.

 

I suspect you don't want your reputation tarnished by this case. You have some great reviews an I congratulate you on that but demanding a thread be removed as part of a settlement says to me that you may be hiding other bad reviews and you want to save face.

 

I feel that leaving this thread visible may go to show that you actually care for your customers.

[Carl Holland]

I have emailed Mr Burns with a possible solution ?

 

 

Dear Mr Burns,

 

May I suggest a possible solution ?

 

From my point of view, this situation has arisen due to a difference in the interpretation of your instructions regarding checking of the goods upon delivery, and signing for, if damage was found.

 

My argument is that the goods were checked upon delivery whilst in the foam wrapping, and as no damage was found on the wrapping it was assumed there would be no damage to the goods inside, and therefore according to your instructions, in my opinion, the goods were checked properly.

 

Your argument is that the goods were not checked properly upon delivery, and I assume that you would expect customers to know they should remove the foam wrapping to check for internal damage, and record this whilst the courier waits.

 

It seems that neither you, nor I, can prove where the damage occurred.

I can categorically assure you they were not damaged whilst in my possession, the foam wrapping was checked as described upon delivery, and it was not damaged, whilst you insist it could not have occurred at your warehouse.

We could continue arguing our positions regarding this point forever, without agreement.

 

If I may suggest, from a customer perspective, a possible solution would be to amend your instructions to make it clearer to your customers how and what should be checked. i.e. removal of all outer packaging must be done prior to signing at delivery.

 

I'm sure that if you agreed to amend/improve these instructions in order to clarify what exactly the customer should be checking and signing for at delivery, and place this on the CAG thread, along with agreeing to replace the damaged goods on this occasion as a one-off goodwill gesture, I believe this would not damage the reputation of your company as it would be see as goodwill on your part, and that you are willing to listen to customers improvement suggestions, it would be seen as good customer service, and also solve the your concerns to avoid any potential future issues of this nature from other customers ?

 

Does this sound like a possible/satisfactory solution ?

 

Regards,

Carl Holland

[dbinit]

Speculation / guessing how the damage happened can not change the facts. There is now simply no way to know how the goods became damaged due to the non conformity by Mr Holland.

 

• Mr Holland had the goods in his possession for 15 days and the law clearly states that the transfer of risk has been made when the goods were signed for.
  
• The goods were not inspected as per our delivery instructions and T&C's until Mr Holland chose to unwrap them 15 days later.
  

 

Despite this we will continue to discuss this matter privately with Mr Holland and we hope to reach an amicable agreement , but we fell that will no longer be productive to the matter, engaging on this thread. We would also request that any resolutions achieved are private and not published on this forum.

[silverfox1961]

Publishing any resolution really isn't up to you although I suspect that you will make it a term of any settlement that Mr Holland no longer posts any updates on this thread.

 

The whole point of inviting you was to show how you treat customers. You seem to think that your terms and conditions override statutory legislation. As it stands, the 15 days you quote is incorrect as the day of delivery does not count so technically he was within the 14 day period however he was still within the 30 days that is now allowed under the CRA.

 

It would help if you post a link to the relevant part of the CRA that a transfer of risk has overridden Mr Hollands rights.

 

I did find this

Rules on delivery and transfer of risk on delivery e.g. unless otherwise agreed goods must be delivered to the consumer without undue delay and within 30 days, and in general the goods are at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of the consumer or a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

 

You must note that there is no mention of how long a customer has to inspect the goods. You recall that Mr Hollands father inspected the goods and didn't see anything of note. What he couldn't see was inside the packaging. Do you expect every customer to unwrap everything before signing? No courier company is going to want the hassle of waiting around.

 

The only way to examine this would be via the courts where your company's terms and conditions would be checked against the statutory rights given in the CRA. You only have to look at some companies who are taken to court fold before their terms can be examined. Vodafone is a prime example.