Tweet
Good evening everyone
been arguing with a kitchen supplier (and finance company) for 4 months now regarding me rejecting their kitchen that I was fitting myself.
Lot of wrangling back back and forth, but the salient points are
kitchen delivered end of sept 2018, 5 days after, on a Saturday I started fitting it and as their is a corner involved it all had to be fitted in a certain order.
on opening the second unit I discovered it was damaged in transit, so called Wren and asked for a refund, as time was of the essence, we needed our kitchen fitted as the old one was now ripped out and I had only a certain amount of time off work, they agreed to send a replacement of the bare carcass inc drawers, but excluding drawer fronts, as damaged unit ones were fine.
shortly after I started putting both units in situ I noticed it what looked like a piece of adhesive on the front of one of the doors, as I rubbed this off gently with my finger a small hole appeared, and it turned out the piece of adhesive was in fact wax! The two units would also not line up properly and both were out at their respective mob emend allowed for tweaking.
i called Wren on the Monday and asked to reject the kitchen under the act, I stated both reasons, Wren refused to stop the delivery, saying they were unable, strange given they run their own logistics, it now seems like that was a deliberate act on their part in order to try and argue over a grey area.
now after much to-ing and fro-ing there final stance is that
1 the damage was disproportionate to the items delivered, (we subsequently found after 7 weeks that there was damage to 5 more units, because I refused to inspect them and eventually 2 Wren employees spent 3 hours checking everything (I was forced into doing this by the finance company, despite me having little room to do so)
2 and because they had already agreed to replace the transit damaged item I lost my right to demand a refund for a found manufacturing fault, and they are within their rights to replace or repair, due to this clause.
(section 23 part 7) which states “a consumer who requires or agrees to the replacement of goods can not require the trader to repair them or exercise the short term right to reject without giving the trader a reasonable time to replace them”.
I will be seeking legal advice next week, but I just wanted this cleared up, as I took that clause to mean, if you had agreed to allow them to fix the defect, then I couldn't reject it further until they had a chance to rectify it ie had I asked for the transit damaged unit to be replaced, and then changed my mind before delivery they would have a point, but my reason for rejection was totally different to the reason for the 1st replacement and as such if that clause is correct what is to stop Wren from exploiting that hence their refusal to stop delivery.
There is a lot more to it, but for the sake of not boring everyone this is the main point they are claiming legally, in all their correspondence they take care never to state the reason for the 1st replacement.
so am I wasting my time with a solicitor, and their time, or should I go and speak to someone local, the Kitchen was purchased in Scotland and is over £10k so would need a proper court, not small claims.
thanks in advance for any advice.
been arguing with a kitchen supplier (and finance company) for 4 months now regarding me rejecting their kitchen that I was fitting myself.
Lot of wrangling back back and forth, but the salient points are
kitchen delivered end of sept 2018, 5 days after, on a Saturday I started fitting it and as their is a corner involved it all had to be fitted in a certain order.
on opening the second unit I discovered it was damaged in transit, so called Wren and asked for a refund, as time was of the essence, we needed our kitchen fitted as the old one was now ripped out and I had only a certain amount of time off work, they agreed to send a replacement of the bare carcass inc drawers, but excluding drawer fronts, as damaged unit ones were fine.
shortly after I started putting both units in situ I noticed it what looked like a piece of adhesive on the front of one of the doors, as I rubbed this off gently with my finger a small hole appeared, and it turned out the piece of adhesive was in fact wax! The two units would also not line up properly and both were out at their respective mob emend allowed for tweaking.
i called Wren on the Monday and asked to reject the kitchen under the act, I stated both reasons, Wren refused to stop the delivery, saying they were unable, strange given they run their own logistics, it now seems like that was a deliberate act on their part in order to try and argue over a grey area.
now after much to-ing and fro-ing there final stance is that
1 the damage was disproportionate to the items delivered, (we subsequently found after 7 weeks that there was damage to 5 more units, because I refused to inspect them and eventually 2 Wren employees spent 3 hours checking everything (I was forced into doing this by the finance company, despite me having little room to do so)
2 and because they had already agreed to replace the transit damaged item I lost my right to demand a refund for a found manufacturing fault, and they are within their rights to replace or repair, due to this clause.
(section 23 part 7) which states “a consumer who requires or agrees to the replacement of goods can not require the trader to repair them or exercise the short term right to reject without giving the trader a reasonable time to replace them”.
I will be seeking legal advice next week, but I just wanted this cleared up, as I took that clause to mean, if you had agreed to allow them to fix the defect, then I couldn't reject it further until they had a chance to rectify it ie had I asked for the transit damaged unit to be replaced, and then changed my mind before delivery they would have a point, but my reason for rejection was totally different to the reason for the 1st replacement and as such if that clause is correct what is to stop Wren from exploiting that hence their refusal to stop delivery.
There is a lot more to it, but for the sake of not boring everyone this is the main point they are claiming legally, in all their correspondence they take care never to state the reason for the 1st replacement.
so am I wasting my time with a solicitor, and their time, or should I go and speak to someone local, the Kitchen was purchased in Scotland and is over £10k so would need a proper court, not small claims.
thanks in advance for any advice.
