Faulty sofas

kelpie35

Can someone help me please. I purchase 2 recliner sofa online in May this year. Both of them have developed a fault. There was no guard protectors on the recliner bit and the leather has ripped. I contacted the retailer who told me he would send an engineer. They arrived last Thursday and said that they could be fixed.
Today I have received the report and they have informed me they are taking the ends of the sofas away next week to be fixed.
I am not happy with this as How can I be guaranteed the same colour of leather will be the same or match.
I have asked for my money back as the purchase is not fit for use as I have been told by the engineer that I can't use the recliners.
Can I claim under section 75 of my credit card? Can you please give me advise urgently as I am desperate.

purplejac

First of all who did you buy it from ? you could try the sale of goods act i did and got all money back etc but i told them from day one i wanted to refuse the sofa, so try the sale of goods act also contact trading standards they will give you a ref number which is handy to have and mention to the company in question that your taking it to trading standards if all else fails you can use section 75, The trick is to stay strong and not let them talk you into something you dont want just keep repeating its not fit for use so under the sale of goods act you choose to refuse it and want a full refund.

Have a wee look at my posts of dfs it may help perhaps similar tatics are being used by the company you bought it from hope this helps.

BaldacchinoR

You can use Section 75 but you will still have to satisfy the credit card company that you have a valid claim of course.

It seems you made the complaint to the supplier within 6 months of purchase, so you should be entitlted to a refund under the Sale of Goods and related legislation. On fit for use, I am not clear whether you mean they are not fit because of the faults or not fit because the engineer said you cannot use them if the arms are to be removed for repair. If the latter, I doubt if that counts as not fit for purpose. If the former reason, then fine. They are also of unsatisfactory quality too.

Apart from matching the leather, there is the question, why should you accept the goods when they have failed badly so soon in their lifetime? I would have no confidence that the same fault would not develop again (or even some other fault).

Googlewhacker

BaldacchinoR wrote: »

You can use Section 75 but you will still have to satisfy the credit card company that you have a valid claim of course.

It seems you made the complaint to the supplier within 6 months of purchase, so you should be entitlted to a refund under the Sale of Goods and related legislation. On fit for use, I am not clear whether you mean they are not fit because of the faults or not fit because the engineer said you cannot use them if the arms are to be removed for repair. If the latter, I doubt if that counts as not fit for purpose. If the former reason, then fine. They are also of unsatisfactory quality too.

Apart from matching the leather, there is the question, why should you accept the goods when they have failed badly so soon in their lifetime? I would have no confidence that the same fault would not develop again (or even some other fault).

This is not correct, within the first 6 months yes you can return a product to a retailer and they have to prove that the fault that has occured is not inherent. The only time you are able to demand a refund is if you return the product faulty within a 'reasonable' time period and this is normally to check the product works etc and would not be more than a few weeks.

However the company effectively has the choice to repair or replace the product at whichever is cheaper business sense.

SOGA states you can tell them which you would like but if they can do it in a cheaper way then they are allowed to over ride your request and obviously a repair to a product or a replacement is cheaper business wise than a refund.

Googlewhacker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2507489=

The link for PurpleJacs thread.

The main differance between hers and this one is the time limit, she was within the 'reasonable' time period to demand a refund back whereas the OP is well out of this reasonable time period.

kelpie35

I have now put in a claim under section 75 as the company keep passing me to the repair company, who in my opinion are not got very good reviews. As for "not fit for purpose" they are both recliner sofas and the engineer has told me they can't be used as that till they have been repaired. They are taking the ends of the sofas away, supposedly, next week sometime. I have asked the company, who I bought the suite from, what I am supposed to sit on till it is returned, approx 3 weeks. The company are not interested.

BaldacchinoR

Googlewhacker wrote: »

This is not correct, within the first 6 months yes you can return a product to a retailer and they have to prove that the fault that has occured is not inherent. The only time you are able to demand a refund is if you return the product faulty within a 'reasonable' time period and this is normally to check the product works etc and would not be more than a few weeks.

Googlewacker is not correct. See Martin's article on this website saying that after 4 weeks, you can still get a partial refund. In fact, I have been told more than once by the Citizen's Advice Bureau that there is no such rule as the '4 weeks rule' or the '28 days rule' for refunds and the potential refund period is much longer than the 28 days quoted by many retailers, obviously for their benefit not the customer. Ignore such claims by Googlewacker and retailers about the 28 days.

Also the period for refunds can depend on the item in question including how much it cost and how long it should reasonably be expected to last. Sofas of course should last a lot longer than 4 weeks, and 6 months for that matter. I would certainly pursue the possibility of a refund beyond 6 months from what the CAB told me. You will need to do this if you are going for a Section 75 refundas you have said you will/are.

I think there needs to be more clarification about when a refund might be obtainable as people are being put off by this false 28 days limit.

I agree with Googlewacker that you should take professional advice and in this respect, I would refer you to the CAB, and/or you may have a telephone lawyer advice service included in an existing insurance policy, such as a motor or home insurance policy. If you have the latter, use it as you have already paid for the service in your premium. You will also get virtually instantaneous advice compared with going to the CAB who may take a few weeks to give you an interview, but still worth going. They have links with your local Trading Standards Dept who's intervention may sort out a refund for you. There's also ConsumerDirect who you can make a complaint to online and they can also refer the matter to Trading Standards for investigation. Any of these could be quicker ways of getting what you want.

fthl

Actually, I agree with Googlewhacker.

It is true that there is no set 28 day period (or similar) within which you are entitled to a full refund (although the law commission were consulting on having a specified period), you just have a reasonable time. This said, I think that BaldacchinoR's post was, in my view, misleading:

It seems you made the complaint to the supplier within 6 months of purchase, so you should be entitlted to a refund under the Sale of Goods and related legislation.

I think this gives the wrong impression and seems to make infer a link between the burden of proof in s48A(3) and the actual remdies given in that section.

The right to a partial refund is entirely different to a full refund, one is a first tier right, the other a second tier right and it extends for up to six years, diminishing over time with usage.

After three/four months I'm not sure that you would get a full refund. It is possible, but I wouldn't bet a nice steak on it, especially if the sofa can be repaired. If there is a design fault which means that the problem will re-occur then you might be able to swing 100% store credit or maybe a 90 - 95% cash refund. The bright retailer will do the former as it will cost them less.

I would certainly pursue the possibility of a refund beyond 6 months from what the CAB told me. You will need to do this if you are going for a Section 75 refundas you have said you will/are.

I think that this is poor advice. The time you have to reject is very fluid and courts have ruled that it has been lost in a few days, weeks or months. It only extends to months in rare cases; usually where there is a question over whether the goods can actually be fixed or not.

Googlewhacker

BaldacchinoR wrote: »

Googlewhacker wrote: »

This is not correct, within the first 6 months yes you can return a product to a retailer and they have to prove that the fault that has occured is not inherent. The only time you are able to demand a refund is if you return the product faulty within a 'reasonable' time period and this is normally to check the product works etc and would not be more than a few weeks.

Googlewacker is not correct. See Martin's article on this website saying that after 4 weeks, you can still get a partial refund. In fact, I have been told more than once by the Citizen's Advice Bureau that there is no such rule as the '4 weeks rule' or the '28 days rule' for refunds and the potential refund period is much longer than the 28 days quoted by many retailers, obviously for their benefit not the customer. Ignore such claims by Googlewacker and retailers about the 28 days.

I never mentioned 4 weeks or 28 days, I stated 'reasonable time period' as is stated by SOGA and at the end of the day the only people that will be able to deem 'reasonable' are judges in court.

A company has to make the decision at some point of what is a reasonable time period and as said before the only way you can test whether the reasonable time period they provide is actually reasonbale is by taking the retailer to court.

You are correct in that you 'could' get a partial refund but as said before this only occurs if it is the cheapest option available to the retailer and this normally only occurs once the product they are selling has become obsolete.