ScS sofas ignoring trading standards

yv007

Purchased corner sofa from ScS sofas for £1300. Day after delivery rang them as wasn't happy with it as half is much softer than the other & really uncomfortable. They sent upholsterer round then wrote to me saying nothing wrong with it. Involved consumer direct & wrote 2 letters stating they were in breach of sale of goods act, got same reply from them saying nothing wrong. Case then passed to Trading standards who suggested they pay half towards independaant upholsterers report, ScS refused so I had to fork out £115. Report agreed that goods weren't fit for purpose in current state so sent this off to ScS with letter requesting refund. They are ignoring this and saying they are not liable. Got trading standards & Barclays finance trying to get this sorted. Just wondered if anyone else has had similar problems & if so how did they get a resolution?

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Well why arent they fit for the purpose? what did the independent report say? why are SCS disputing the report?

zzzLazyDaisy

Hate to say it, but ScS are ignoring TS because they can. I had a similar problem with another organisation, but after writing several letters and getting nowhere, TS informed me that they had no power to take any further action unless a criminal offence had been committed - which was not the case. TS advised me to go to the small claims court.

If you bought the suite on hire purchase, then your best avenue is to put pressure on the credit company (presumably barclays finance) as they (not the seller) have an obligation to ensure the suite is fit for its purpose, or to return your money. It sounds as if Barclays have accepted the report, so they should reimburse you, and then pursue SCS.

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/making-complaint/template-letters/supply_goods_act/

yv007

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Well why arent they fit for the purpose? what did the independent report say? why are SCS disputing the report?

Hi, the report said thatthe half of the sofa that is softer has not been constructed properely hence the reason for it being so uncomfortable.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

yv007 wrote: »

Hi, the report said thatthe half of the sofa that is softer has not been constructed properely hence the reason for it being so uncomfortable.

Well as long as report is said from a reputable expert start legal proceedings on money claim online stating it breaches SOGA as faulty and not fit for the purpose

Claim for the purchase cost, along with the experts report and any other costs incurred

Purpledaisy_2

Ok, what sofa is it ?
How is it constructed incorrectly ?
What upholsterer did you use?

yv007

it is a corner sofa, half of which is sprung base & other half is webbed hence the difference. Also very uncomfie where the join is. The upholstere I used for report was one recommended by trading standards as he works as independant consultant.

Purpledaisy_2

Many corner units are designed this way, did you not notice the difference when looking at the one in the shop?

Was it advertised as sprung ?

yv007

wouldn't mind that if the one I have was same a s the one on display in shop but it isn't. The one in shop was firm on all seats, mine isn't. The independant upholsterer did report stating that the webbed bit has not been webbed tightly enough. Think it will end up in court but in meantime I will ensure ScS get plenty of bad publicity for their appalling after sales service.

copier_guy

make a nuisence of yourself,

get some flyers made and stand outside their showroom and hand them out.

yv007

you must have read my mind, cos was thinking of launching a protest against company, Have contaced BBC watchdog & phoned local press who might run a story.