DFS will only repair sofa.

sneakyg

Hi I purchased a Sofa from DFS and it came at the end of July 09. I sent them the following message:

Hi

I have purchased a sofa from yourselves, the sofa is less than 6 months old. It has developed two faults in this time, on both arms of the sofa, on separate occasions. I allowed DFS to repair the arm the first time however I am unwilling for this to happen again and decided that i would to purchase a different sofa from DFS.

I have contacted the branch 22/11/09 at 13:00 and spoke to Rebecca, Justin and Colin who informed me that the companys policy is to repair not replace. I informed them that i wanted it returned under the Sales of Goods Act 1982. Colin said that it was not delivered faulty so this does not apply. This clearly suggests that he has no grasp of what the Act is and how i am protected under it.

I am very aware of what my rights are and would like a speedy conclusion to this.

Regards

They are not budging, i contacted my credit card company who simply followed what DFS said to them without any questionning and said that another repair is ok.

i am at my wits end, the sofa is only a few months old and the cushion is flat on one of the seats and both arms are damaged .

I have been informed by members of DFS that it broke due to poor material that was used to construct it, but this still doesnt lead to me being able to return this sofa.

Has anyone taken them to a small claims court?

somethingcorporate

Oops, sadly they are in the right and you are in the wrong.

You can only reject an item under the SOGA in a reasonable time, and I would suggest that 6 months is not a reasonable time within which to reject.

Having "accepted" the goods it is than at the retailers discretion as to whether they can repair, replace or give a refund.

Sorry that this is probably not what you want to hear - you could always go down the "rejection" route but like I mentioned above your behaviour (ie. keeping it and using it for 6 months) would be construed as acceptance. Hence, the ball is back in the retailers court as to how they wish to proceed.

woody01

I have contacted the branch 22/11/09 at 13:00 and spoke to Rebecca, Justin and Colin who informed me that the companys policy is to repair not replace. I informed them that i wanted it returned under the Sales of Goods Act 1982. Colin said that it was not delivered faulty so this does not apply. This clearly suggests that he has no grasp of what the Act is and how i am protected under it.

Sorry, but from reading this, it is infact you that has no grasp of SOGA and have probably made yourself look a bit stupid going in there quoting it.

I am very aware of what my rights are and would like a speedy conclusion to this.

This is the point. You are not aware of your rights.
DFS, (what would you expect anyway), are well within their rights to replace OR repair. It is not your decision as to which they do.
However, if you can either:
a). Prove the fault was inherent (this may actually be down to mis-use).
or
b). End up having 3 repairs done
Then you may well have a case under SOGA.

At this moment though, DFS are fulfilling their obligations.

Please, in future be careful about quoting SOGA when you don't actually know the facts encompassing it, as not only will the shops laugh at you, but you will also give misleading information in the public domain.

4743hudsonj

I have to say, i always chuckled at situations like this when i worked in a clothing shop. The dreaded "i know my rights".

OP, i agree with all of the above, you are in the wrong unfortunately.

sneakyg

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Oops, sadly they are in the right and you are in the wrong.

You can only reject an item under the SOGA in a reasonable time, and I would suggest that 6 months is not a reasonable time within which to reject.

Having "accepted" the goods it is than at the retailers discretion as to whether they can repair, replace or give a refund.

Sorry that this is probably not what you want to hear - you could always go down the "rejection" route but like I mentioned above your behaviour (ie. keeping it and using it for 6 months) would be construed as acceptance. Hence, the ball is back in the retailers court as to how they wish to proceed.

Thanks

The fault has been their since the beginning of nov, and my argument is that it is an inherant fault - espcecially as the DFS sales man and repair guy said that the wood used is quite poor.

sneakyg

woody01 wrote: »

Sorry, but from reading this, it is infact you that has no grasp of SOGA and have probably made yourself look a bit stupid going in there quoting it.


This is the point. You are not aware of your rights.
DFS, (what would you expect anyway), are well within their rights to replace OR repair. It is not your decision as to which they do.
However, if you can either:
a). Prove the fault was inherent (this may actually be down to mis-use).
or
b). End up having 3 repairs done
Then you may well have a case under SOGA.

At this moment though, DFS are fulfilling their obligations.

Please, in future be careful about quoting SOGA when you don't actually know the facts encompassing it, as not only will the shops laugh at you, but you will also give misleading information in the public domain.

thanks,

How would i go about proving that the fault is inherent?

I have already had a repair done once and they want to come and fix the other two faults, are you saying that if i allow this and then another fault develops then i should be entitled?

4743hudsonj

Even if you prove the fault is inherent they still only have to repair if that is what they wish so i wouldnt waste the money. Give a repair another go, if it happens again, then you are entering the sort of limit of when repairs become unacceptable.