Faulty Setee - My Rights

Kenny345

I purchased a suite from Harveys which arrived around a month ago. Within weeks, we noticed that one of the seats on the two-seater setee was of poor quality and apparently defective. We contacted Harveys who sent out a technician. He agreed there was a fault stating that, in his view, the cushions hadn't been filled sufficiently and that the likely course of action would be a repair. At the time of his visit I informed him that I wouldn't be satisfied with a repair and wanted a replacement. He has now submitted his report to Harveys which confirms the defect with a recommendation that the setee should be repaired not replaced. Speaking to Customer Services at Harveys this morning I was assured that the repair will bring the suite to 100% condition and that, within the terms of the Sale of Goods Act, they were meeting their obligations with this offer.
I feel that an offer of repair isn't sufficient and that the offending article whould be replaced.
I have conducted some basic research regarding my rights but feel my case is in a bit of a 'grey area' legally.
Any advice before I take this matter further would be gratefully appreciated.

misssarahleigh

"I feel that an offer of repair isn't sufficient"

Why?

USM

It's not a grey area in any way, shape, or form - it's crystal clear.

The choice of remedy (repair, replacement, refund) is the seller's choice.

bod1467

The "grey area" comes from the "reasonable time to accept the goods" part of SOGA. Is a month a reasonable time to be deemed to have accepted the goods? In my opinion - yes; 2 weeks is more than enough to be able to inspect a suite for any obvious defects etc. Thus the retailer is within their rights to offer a repair.

mickburkejnr

USM wrote: »

It's not a grey area in any way, shape, or form - it's crystal clear.

The choice of remedy (repair, replacement, refund) is the seller's choice.

It doesn't actually say the retailer has the choice in this matter, it's only assumed that they have.

unholyangel

mickburkejnr wrote: »

It doesn't actually say the retailer has the choice in this matter, it's only assumed that they have.

If you mean the SoGA then:
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

Ultimately the retailer does have the final say. They must provide a remedy but they can reject one requested by the consumer in favour of another if it is disproportionately costly.

timbstoke

I think mickburkejnr is right in a sense - the fact that the SOGA specifies that the buyer cannot require a specific remedy if the cost of that remedy is disproportionate, does seem to indicate that the buyer can require a remedy of their choice if all available remedy's incur a similar cost on the retailer.

Of course, until that's tested in a court, which is unlikely, then in real terms the retailer can dictate the remedy.

tomjonesrules

So if they took away your settee and a week later brought you a replacement, how would you know that it was not the original one that had been repaired?