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.

Actually this is incorrect. You cannot return a damaged item. Goods can only be returned in good condition unless a fault has only developed or become apparent after use. The issue is about where the goods became damaged because in this case the goods were fit for purpose and not faulty when they left the store. They were damaged somewhere between leaving the store and the 15 days they were in Mr Hollands possession, who accepted the Liability of the goods when they were signed for. This is detailed under the transfer of risk in the CRA. The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of— (a) the consumer, or (b) a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. Also due to the non conformity to our terms by the customer, we can now not determine when the goods became damaged and who is therefore responsible for the damage. C.R.A also make reference to non conformity being another reason that a refund can be refused. We have offered Mr Holland a further gesture in an effort to just close the matter.

I am responding as a representative for Wood Floor Warehouse ltd to explain our stance on this particular claim. We take each and every claim seriously as customer satisfaction is of the upmost importance to us. We are constantly evolving our business to learn and improve for our customers. I feel that this shows in our online feedback of which 99.5% is positive via ebay and 94% positive on Komi. These are among 2 of the best scores in our industry. We want to make sure every customer is happy with our service and do everything we can within reason to ensure that this is the case. One of the most difficult things for any online retailer is that Consumer rights ask for "reasonable time to inspect goods", where as almost every couriers terms and conditions will state that once goods are signed for, there is then no longer a claim with them for damages. When writing our own terms and conditions and sending our delivery emails to customers , we state that we require the goods to be checked immediately upon delivery. We believe that this is adequate for 99% our deliveries which are either sent on a pallet inside a clear wrap so any damages will be easily identifiable, or wrapped in multiple layers of packaging foam, which will damage externally, before the internal contents are at risk of become damaged. However we know that this is not always the case every time so in addition we then treat each case individually upon on its own merit even if our own terms and conditions and delivery instructions are not satisfied. The law makes a specific reference to inspecting your goods for damages within reasonable time although they do not clarify how long this reasonable time is. It should not be confused with 30 days for faulty goods, or 30 days on goods not fit for purpose. Damages are not classed as faulty goods nor are they classed as goods not fit for purpose. Damages are simply that, goods which have been damaged and the law specifically asks that a customer does inspect for them as do our sales terms highlighted to every customer. The simple reason for this is once the goods are in the customers possession, they are still at risk of damage. the Consumer Right Act states that once a customer takes possession, the goods are now under their own care and risk. If this was not the case, then what way would there be to stop someone claiming for a damaged TV that fell when they attempted to hang it on the wall 2 days after delivery? We try to be fair to everyone and although we do not state it on our website, even when goods are not signed as damaged, we will still individually assess a case and if we feel that the customer is genuine and the damages were reported to us in a reasonable time then we will usually cover the cost of the claim even at our own expense despite having no claim with the courier company. We do not state this on our website as it is at our own discretion and each case is different. We also do not want to deter customers from checking their goods thoroughly upon delivery as if they fail to do this , then we will not have a claim for even the most obvious of courier damages when a customer decides to delay checking it to a later date because our terms and conditions allowed it. In this particular case the packaging tears around where the damaged corners have occurred in both images are jagged and also in line with the damaged corner which is exactly what we would expect to see with impact damage. The rest of the torn packaging is not jagged, which is what we would expect to see when ripping the packaging open by hand or a blade. This is evident in pictures 4 and 5. In the first picture which is again impact damage which is so severe that we do not believe that the product could have been damaged internally this badly without any external packaging damage. Additionally, we have also looked at the time frame in which it has taken to report the damages to us. In this case it took Mr Holland 15 days to report any damages to us, despite being asked to check the goods immediately. We think that 15 days is too long to be considered a reasonable time if your are initially asked to inspect goods immediately. And of course we now have no way to know that Mr Holland or His father who received the goods did not cause the impact damage after delivery. To the best of my knowledge, our conditions are in full compliance with UK consumer rights and are made clear to our customers before purchase and again before dispatch of the goods. If for any reason Mr Holland thought he would not be able to check the goods on delivery, he should have raised this with us before ordering as it is not something that we bury in terms and conditions, but something that we highlight. A customer does have certain responsibilities and I feel that they have been ignored in this particular case. With regards to the statement from Mr Holland that the goods were sent out damaged on purpose, this is something that we completely refute due to the following reasons: As a business that aims for excellent customer feedback, intentionally sending damaged goods would severely impact upon this We have identified impact damage in the pictures Any damaged boxes found within our warehouse are either cut up for sampling, (saving us opening perfect boxes) or disposed of in an incinerator which heats our warehousing. We simply have no need to send these boxes out. Our warehouse staff also receive a bonus each week provided damages are kept to a minimum level. This is to encourage them to pack everything well. If they packaged up already damaged goods this could potentially affect their performance bonus. I will be communicating with Mr Holland outside of this forum in an effort to try to resolve things for him amicably. It is our intention to do our very best for every customer who has chosen us and I hope that we can come to an agreement with him.