Hypothetical question about quality of parts from a supplier

[FridgeFreezer]

Just a scenario for you:

Suppose someone had bought a set of, oh, let's call them Faddocks Land Rover Parts own-brand stub axles, wheel bearings, oil seals, brake discs and pads to repair one's Range Rover with. Upon fitting them, suppose the fit of these parts was so poor that no sooner had the EP90 gone into the axle than it had appeared out of the hubs, run down the brake disc and contaminated the new pads, which would hypothetically leave said person at a high state of miff having spent all evening in the p*ssing rain rebuilding the hubs.

What do you suppose that person might reasonably expect Faddocks to do to rectify this, given the trade descriptions act and all that stuff?

Obviously this is just an imaginary scenario and bears no resemblance to any actual parts supplier

[Les Henson]

I suppose you are within your rights to make them pay/put everything right, but in reality parts suppliers use excuses, such as incorrect fitting, unqualified person fitting them, etc, etc. I've been compensated a few times, but it is rare.

Les.

[wkw90]

If you buy things from the internet dont you have the right to send them back no matter what within 28 days .

[Bluemoon]

in this scenario did he seal between the axle and stub axle, or could it not have come from, jut a thought

[Lars L]

Well, my experience of a company with a not so dissimilar name is that their outgoing e-mails don't seem to work after having sent them some remarks regarding the quality of their merchandise...

Last time in all helpfulness and with the intention just to tell them about a specific products so they could be able to check their stock. The easiest way to rectify my own problem with said product actually was to modify it myself, so there were no claims of any kind.

[Ryan]

John, I think under the Sales of Goods act, it is down to you to prove it was the part(s) supplied that were at fault (I'm assuming you are talking about the hypothetical seal). Now, when you contact them (I'd do it by phone as Faddocks never reply to my hypothetical e-mails), they may well say - "okay, we'll replace everything for you." You may be able to get them to replace the seal with a brand you've actually heard of. I wouldn't replace the stuff yourselves without contacting them first and then try and make a claim, as they could ask you to take a long walk off a short pier .

[FridgeFreezer]

I'm not sure if it's the seal or the stub axle that's out (or both), it seemed a pretty loose fit when I offered it up. Conversely the wheel bearings had to be drifted onto the stub axle as the end seemed to not be machined quite right.

I don't expect pattern parts to last as long as genuine but is it unreasonable to expect them to actually be made right in the first place, especially at £65 per stub axle. All I did was assemble the hub, refill the axle with EP90 and drive it ~6ft forwards onto the grass, one look underneath and there's oil p*ssing down the shiny new brake disc.

[jj_110]

Serves you right for buying cheap and nasty I would say.hahaha

I'm sure there are enough threads everywhere that praise the high quality of allmakes etc...

We all learned the hard way hehehe

JJ

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Hmmm

Funnily enough I have dealt with Faddocks in the past too, the junk they sent me was truly hopless, worse than their customer service which is shockingly bad as they seem to employ staff who have both an attitude, and an inability to tell the truth, inc just when they have been / will be posted.

I resorted to the 'big shouty method', working my way up the monkey command chain until I got one of the Senior muppets who was "Suprised" I had a problem as all their other customers were so happy that they would father children for them

Contuining on the Shouty and moving toward the legal discussions around 'sales of good act' generated a comment which seemed to indicate that they were actaully so special they ignore this, along with "Fit for purpose" which it was - she said - I did point out how impressed I was that she had the ability to see the goods from where she was at the end of a phone line, and also mentioned that under the distance selling regaultions one call to the credit card co would see the transaction recorded as above, and they would have the money pulled back. So, she had the choice of having their c**p back, and giving me a full refund, or going the legal route in which case I would be delighted to put the boot on the other foot and be as difficult with them and they were being now.

They obvioulsy decided I was a difficult and unreasonable character, and that I didn't deserve to have their products, so sent a man to collect them, and after some huffing and puffing I got the full refund, as they tried even then to clip me on the postage.

Frankly I am constantly appalled by many of the so called LR Factors, the junk they sell, and the delivery makes the products even look good

I mainly buy genuine - with the adjustment of LR pricing many parts are cheaper than pattern - oh and they fit, plus I can check at the dealers before I walk out

I would rather 'tazer my testies' (but thats another hobby story) than waste my money or breath in trying dealing with Faddocks,

Nige

[GBMUD]

John, I think under the Sales of Goods act, it is down to you to prove it was the part(s) supplied that were at fault (I'm assuming you are talking about the hypothetical seal).

You are quite wrong. It is down to the supplier to prove that the items are NOT faulty.

In this case John I would return them to the supplier - at your own expense sadly - and ask for a refund as they are not of satisfactory quality and are not fit for purpose. You may be entitled to a refund of reasonable postage or you may not, I am not sure. If I were faced with a dissatisfied customer in similar circumstances I would refund the postage too.

I am assuming that you paid by plastic. If you paid with a credit card then the card company shares responsibility with the supplier. If you paid by Visa debit you may also have some rights. You should get satisfaction from the dealer though, leave te cards as a last resort.

Chris

Edited: I was still typing when Nige posted. I would be inclined to operate a similar tactic to him. Be reasonable and do not get angry.

I bought a stub axle in the past from a budget supplier that turned out to be 4thou too big for the bearing to go on. 4thou aint a lot - till you try to get a bearing round it!

[FridgeFreezer]

Handy post Nige, I hadn't thought of calling the credit card company.

FWIW I know pattern parts are often poor, but this is a play truck that does maybe 1k miles in a year so even bearings made of chocolate would be acceptable for the use it gets, what I'm p*ssed about is the fact none of it fits properly.

Which reminds me...

Serves you right for buying cheap and nasty I would say.hahaha

I'm sure there are enough threads everywhere that praise the high quality of allmakes etc...

We all learned the hard way hehehe

JJ

[Top90]

Well, I'm glad I've never used Faddocks the imaginary company.

[LandyManLuke]

I order from a 'local' (well they were before i moved away) independant 200 miles away rather than, er, Faddocks.

I get service that way

[jj_110]

I can highly reccomend L-R supermarket in Liverpool. Ask for J or Neil and 99.9% you will have the right stuff there the next day or even same day if L-R Chester got it in stock. Oh all I ever buy is original as I hate fixing them.

Paddocks is just...UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRGH

JJ

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

TriParty Agreement and protection under the SOG act on a credit card has to have a value of £100+

You call them and say disputed SOG act Fit for purpose (or not in this case )

I found Faddocks arogant and had a scant - if any knowledge / adherance to the law, or wish to

Prob becuase with the absolute junk they shove out they have to get good at fobbing people off or it would come back more often, without doubt they seemed more knowedgable about why it was Fit For Purpose, I was wrong Sales Of Goods act didn't apply etc than the differences between a 1985 90 V8 and a defender

Truly hopless

Nige

[FridgeFreezer]

The £100+ thing will be fine, two stub axles at £65 each plus all the other stuff it was over £200.

[jj_110]

£65 for a pattern stub axle?????? Holy ****e...

And the rest I shall just ignore Mr. Combo refrigerator...hahaha

Be happy that your pattern parts failed on your drive while you wer efitting them. Not two days after fitting them at night in a welsh forrest were your wheelbearing collapses and your wheel goes walkies...

JJ

[reads90]

The £100+ thing will be fine, two stub axles at £65 each plus all the other stuff it was over £200.

The problem you have is that they will come back to you with

Are you a trained mechanic. And when you say no they will say Ahh well you fitted them wrong them and therefore its not our problem. And you have no proof that they were fitted right , and after they have been on and used they will say they are now damaged by you so of course they will not work once you put them on right . So they will then tell you to politly to go forth and fornicate

I know you will have done it right Jon, (well think you would have ) but the general public are thick as pig s**t and do ask the most stupid questions, and do the most unbeliveable things and still say they are experts, I mean just look at some advice comes up on some forums

I had a chap once who would not lets us screed his Kitchen for flooring, Said he was an expert at DIY and had done it all (and was not going to pay us to do it as he thought we were ripping him off). Anyway after a bit he bought the self levaling screed and off he went. 9am the next day (the day of fitting) this chap was screeming down the phone at me telling me the stuff i sold him was carp. As he was round the corner off i went to his house. I was meet at the door with a barrage of abuse to then walk in the kitchen to find a pile of screed that looked like a little volcano. He had just mixed the screed and then dumped it in the middle of the floor. He was moaning bacuse it was self levaling screed and it had done nothing all night. I turn to the chap and said you have to help it . Cost him alot more to fix. But i have many many soties as anyone does who deals with the general public

So to sum up i can understand why some compnies are a bit wary on these sort of problems

[Ryan]

You are quite wrong. It is down to the supplier to prove that the items are NOT faulty.

I was looking at the Dti website and it says this:

"In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years)."

[Guest WALFY]

Surely if he produced a reciept from Henson Engineering ( or any other local reputable firm) for the fitment of the goods then they'd of been fitted properly . If you get my drift

[will_warne]

JU, give the company a call and have a chat about your statutory right. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 will be all you need. Just quote them section 14(2) (goods must be of satisfactory quality) and section 14(3) (goods must be fit for purpose). You could also have a go with section 13 (goods sold by description must correspond to their description) as I think the seals could be argued aren't sealing

Oh, and if you want case law give me a shout as my brain is full of contract law cases at the moment. Ironically enough the case you'd use to demonstrate s.14(2) (Rogers v Parish) involves a dodgy Range Rover

[geoffbeaumont]

I guess the solution to the "you're not trained to fit it" problem is to get an inspection done by someone who is. Might not be economical though unless you can call in a favour.

[reads90]

I guess the solution to the "you're not trained to fit it" problem is to get an inspection done by someone who is. Might not be economical though unless you can call in a favour.

That is where they have you by the balls

[OilIT]

That is where they have you by the balls

Based upon the recent post for water ingress on a defender - specifically the first or second paragraph where is states it is assumed the technician is competent enough to know the door case needs to come off before sealing the door frame ... one wonders what a qualified person looks like.

I wonder if you can demonstrate you have done much successful work without problem, or indeed have an engineering apprenticeship etc etc then their arguement would hold water (excuse the pun)

Regardless, speak to CAB - get your facts and find out your rights - then call this imaginary company.

[GBMUD]

I was looking at the Dti website and it says this:

"In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years)."

From further down the same page:

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

So perhaps in the case of a refund FF is better just claiming that the goods were not fit for purpose. Either way, he is entitled to satisfaction.

Chris

Chris