Car Parts supplier sold faulty part and refused to accept responsibility

[babyboo23]

I am currently in the process of taking a car parts company (WBU parts of Stoke-on Trent) to court after I purchased a pair of front headlight units for my MGF which we needed in order for my car to pass MOT. i checked them on delivery and they looked perfectly fine but after having them fitted by a garage and an MOT re-test done, they car failed again on the fact that the beam on one of the lights could not be adjusted due to a broken beam adjuster inside the light.As the lights are sealed units this must have been a manufacturing fault. I phoned the company to tell them of the problem and ask for a replacement but was rudely told that it was not their problem and they accused me of damaging the lights.
After seeking advice of trading standards I have now issued a moneyclaim. The company have indicated their intention to defend all claims so looks like its off to court...

[Rob S]

Were they new parts?

[babyboo23]

Yep brand spanking new parts £250 for a pair so not cheapies either. They are Valeo parts and the company I dealt with are just a supplier. Makes me laugh because they call themselves Why Buy Used...but i probably would have had better quality from used parts!

Their whole attitude has stunk right from the start. Their time to submit a defense is nearly up though so waiting to see weather it goes to default.

[Rob S]

Good luck with the claim. At least you had them fitted by a garage so they will hopefully be able to back up your case.

[babyboo23]

Result!!
Just got of the phone to the bailiff who said WBU have paid up and I should receive my money in a couple of weeks! Excellent.

[Rob S]

Nice result, well done!

[wbuparts]

You have forgot to mention a number of facts regarding this sale, which I would like to make clear.

Firstly, you refused a replacement part, and in fact have never returned the part for inspection.

Secondly, Swansea County Court denied us our legal right to defend this case and judgement was given in our absence. We were told by two different employees of the court that as we were unable to attend on the date given that the hearing would be adjourned to allow us to attend. The Judge then gave judgement in our absence. Obviously, Wales must have a very different view of justice than England.

Thirdly, you claimed nearly £300 for a headlamp that was £99 + VAT.

Fourthly, you recieved the part in working order and checked it on delivery, deemed it to be in good condition and signed for it in good condition. The part was inspected prior to dispatch by a former MG/Rover employer

This whole case was absurd, and I'm sure that if we were given our legal right to defend this case the outcome would have been very different.

[Rob S]

The OP says she ordered a pair of headlights. If one headlight was £99 + VAT, then a pair should come in at £198 + VAT which comes to £232.65. No doubt there were postage and package charges on top of that. When the OP made her claim she would have had to pay court fees. With those added on it is easy to see how the claim came up to nearly £300.

Did you actually submit a defence to this claim and file it properly? And if you feel the judgement was unfair and was made in your absence did you make any application to have the judgement set aside?

[wbuparts]

Hi,
Yes, she did order a pair of headlamps, 1 of which was fitted fine, and the other she claims was faulty. She then claimed for all sorts of things such as 'lifts' to work, petrol for 'lifts' to work, postage for delivery of another headlamp etc etc

We submitted the defence, and in the meantime discovered that I was unable to attend the court. I spoke to the court who said that if I faxed a letter over confirming that I would be unable to attend then the hearing would be adjouned. This was done immediatley and I phoned the court straight after to confirm they had recieved the fax to which the answer was yes, I also asked if it would be adjourned and the second person confirmed this. After the court hearing I telephoned the court six times trying to find out when the new hearing would be. It took them 5 days to find the file, and was eventually told that judgement had been passed in my absence against us for the total amount. I can't express how incompetant the court was!

We tried many times to submit an appeal, but the court kept on returning the appeal with no covering letter and in the end I got so frustrated that I decided it wasn't worth my time in continuing to deal with such an incompetant court. Every time I called the court I was promised a call back which never materialised (On at least 10 different occasions).

[rosiecotton]

Originally Posted by wbuparts

Fourthly, you recieved the part in working order and checked it on delivery, deemed it to be in good condition and signed for it in good condition. The part was inspected prior to dispatch by a former MG/Rover employer

Obviously I've not seen the part myself and would not be able to comment on whether it was faulty.

However I would like to just explain that a signed delivery note does not mean that the consumer loses their right to claim should goods turn out to be faulty. There is no way that the OP would have been expected to know about the fault on inspection. And the law does give consumers a reasonable time in which to reject faulty goods for a full refund (which would mean the entire contract for both headlamps in this case), you cannot shorten this time by providing a note to sign upon delivery.

[wbuparts]

Hi,
Yes, you are quite right. This has always been a somewhat 'grey' area of the law in the mail order business. What is a reasonable amount of time?

In this case, the goods were transported from where they were delivered under the customers own steam (Damage could have occured during this process!) to their garage and left with the garage (Any damage could also occured whilst in the garage's possession!) It could also of been damaged when the garage attempted to fit the part.

The fault was reported at least 48 hours after the delivery had been made. The fact of the matter is that the goods were checked once when we recieved them from the supplier in the presence of their driver, and also upon dispatch by someone who has previous MG/Rover franchised dealer experience and were found to be in A1 condition.

I'll leave you to ponder?! Had a judge actually allowed us to defend this claim would the outcome been the same? We all know that the Judge is always likely to find in favour of a customer over a retailer, but I believe that in this case the verdict would of been in our favour, as we supplied goods of merchantable quality and also offered to replace the goods, which the customer declined!

[rosiecotton]

48 hours after the delivery was made is nothing at all, and the customer would still have been well within the reasonable time to reject the goods for a full refund. The "reasonable time" is usually 2-3 weeks in most basic cases, of course there are exceptions where the timescale can be longer but that's a general rough guideline.

The ball would then have been in your court, so to speak, to prove that the goods were not faulty.

I can't comment on the goods themselves, but there is clearly an argument that they were not of satisfactory quality at the point of supply and if this was upheld in court then the consumer would have a clear right to reject the goods for a full refund regardless of what note was signed upon delivery.

If you had defended the matter in court it would have been down to you to prove that the goods were not faulty and convince the judge of this. Had you been able to do this, the outcome may well have been different. What your chances were of proving this I cannot really say without expert mechanical opinions.

[babyboo23]

As the original poster of this message regarding my dealings with WBU I would like to point out some things:

Number 1:

Would everyone like to know what WBU's reason was for not attending court?
- They phoned 1 day before the hearing to say they wouldnt be coming which the judge deemed totally unacceptable
- Their reasons for not being able to attend:
a. Their car had broken down ("proabably due to being fitted by their own faulty parts"...and those werent my words)
b. They couldnt hire a car because it was too expensive
c. They had a health condition that meant they couldnt catch a train!!!...

If they aren't bull s**t excuses then I dont know what are!

And here they are whining on about it not being fair and saying the court was negligent ...boo hoo hoo...


Number 2

I did NOT refuse a repacement part...They told me in order to have a replacement I would have to pay AGAIN UPFRONT for another light and would have to send the faulty one to them for testing and only if they found it faulty would I get my money back....Yeah right! As if I was going to let them have the faulty one back only for them to pretend to send it for testing. I had it confirmed as faulty by a VOSA MOT centre fully qualified mechanic ..that was good enough for me..and good enough for the judge.

Number 3

They thought that with me being a woman they could bully me and try and scare me out of taking the matter further.

WBU let this be a lesson to you that the customer is always right!

[babyboo23]

...

[babyboo23]

Originally Posted by rosiecotton

Obviously I've not seen the part myself and would not be able to comment on whether it was faulty.

However I would like to just explain that a signed delivery note does not mean that the consumer loses their right to claim should goods turn out to be faulty. There is no way that the OP would have been expected to know about the fault on inspection. And the law does give consumers a reasonable time in which to reject faulty goods for a full refund (which would mean the entire contract for both headlamps in this case), you cannot shorten this time by providing a note to sign upon delivery.

This was exactly my point all along. WBU are failing to mention that the fault was internal and the light was a sealed unit so... A. there was no way I could have known it was faulty as I am not a mechanic..and B. I couldnt have damaged it myself (as they accused me of time and time again). They are a mickey mouse company...the MD is 21 years old and has no idea of his legal responsibilities as a retailer.

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by wbuparts

Hi,

We tried many times to submit an appeal, but the court kept on returning the appeal with no covering letter and in the end I got so frustrated that I decided it wasn't worth my time in continuing to deal with such an incompetant court. Every time I called the court I was promised a call back which never materialised (On at least 10 different occasions).

it's called a set aside and is VERY easy to request.

[babyboo23]

Thanks sequenci...he is just making excuses. The court told me that he kept sending in the wrong forms incorrectly completed. WBU told me that they were going to take the court to court...haha isnt that the funniest thing you've ever heard!