Rejected second suite

borzio

Hi, advice would be appreciated with a problem after buying a leather suite from Harveys last November.
The first suite came and was rejected within a day of delivery because it had several leather defects. harvey's were fine with that, didn't argue or send out a technician to examine it, but agreed to replace it. This would take until the end of December, but they told us to use the suite until the replacement arrived.

The second suite was delivered with our agreement in January and was signed for as 'delivered'. Within an hour of the men going we found several defects, took photos and phoned customer services. They declined to see the photos and said they would send a technician to examine the suite before deciding on further action.

The technician came today, agreed the suite had all the defects and asked if we wanted repair or replacement after having spoken to Harveys. As you can imagine, we don't want a third suite that may have the same problems, nor do we want after all this time more hassle with repairs that may or may not be satisfactory.

We contacted the store and they said Customer services would contact us, which they did not, but also stated that if we got a refund as opposed to a replacement they would charge us an 'administration fee' (of 30% suite value= £300) and deduct us compensation for use of the suites since we received them.

I have read the Sadfart advice, but would like to know where to go from here and does harveys have the right to keep insisting on repair and replacement?. Any advice would be appreciated

Harveys_Furniture_company_representative

Good evening Borzio. Firstly, please let me apologise for the ongoing problems you are having with your chosen sofa suite. Whilst this is an unusual situation, I can understand how frustrating it must be for you.

in terms of the replacement/repair element, we usually have to explore all potential repair avenues when a sofa has been used. However, I am happy to escalate this to our customer services manager and see if she can't give you a call to talk through the options. i am sure a comprimise can be reached for your.

Could you please email me directly on the email address in my profile and in it give me your order number and full name so that I can chase this up for you.

once again, I do apologise, but I'm sure we can get this sorted.

Liz.

arcon5

Had you not used the sofa, you would not be deemed to have 'accepted' the goods yet, giving you grounds to reject the goods for a full refund under Sales of Goods Act.

However, the fact they have been used may complicate things -- giving them grounds to deem you to have accepted the furniture and a repair by way of remedy. I fear you may have to now accept a repair if thats their choice. So only way you could insist on a refund is if the remedy was not fulfilled within 'reasonable' time.

Fosterdog

Surely it hasn't been accepted though?

The first suite was reported as faulty and rejected within a reasonable time, Harvey's told OP to continue to use it until the replacement could be delivered. The second suite reported as faulty and rejected within an hour of it's arrival.

Do whatever it takes to get a full refund, if their own technician says it's faulty they have no grounds to charge you any admin fee or "compensate" for the time it has been used. You shouldn't be forced or bullied into a repair if you don't want it.

misssarahleigh

Harveys_Furniture_company_representative wrote: »

Good evening Borzio. Firstly, please let me apologise for the ongoing problems you are having with your chosen sofa suite. Whilst this is an unusual situation, I can understand how frustrating it must be for you.

in terms of the replacement/repair element, we usually have to explore all potential repair avenues when a sofa has been used. However, I am happy to escalate this to our customer services manager and see if she can't give you a call to talk through the options. i am sure a comprimise can be reached for your.

Could you please email me directly on the email address in my profile and in it give me your order number and full name so that I can chase this up for you.

once again, I do apologise, but I'm sure we can get this sorted.

Liz.

As far as I can tell both sofa's were reported within 24 hours of delivery. Only one was used and that was after your company accepted it was faulty.

Your company choose to leave the sofa with the customer, no doubt as it was easier and cheaper taking it away and delivering the new one at the same time. I will guess there was also a little good will in letting your customer have a sofa to sit since it took a number of weeks to deliver a new one.

The fact the sofa was used has no relevance. It was effective on delivery.

alun4

I think the retailer has responded well, so far. If I were you, I would negotiate with them to get a good deal (assuming the original purchase was the design you want). Ask for the problems to be sorted at YOUR opinion of a discount. They have a problem suite that will cost to remove, and what do they do with it? You could be in the driving seat!

arcon5

Fosterdog wrote: »

Surely it hasn't been accepted though?

The first suite was reported as faulty and rejected within a reasonable time, Harvey's told OP to continue to use it until the replacement could be delivered. The second suite reported as faulty and rejected within an hour of it's arrival.

Do whatever it takes to get a full refund, if their own technician says it's faulty they have no grounds to charge you any admin fee or "compensate" for the time it has been used. You shouldn't be forced or bullied into a repair if you don't want it.

The fact op has been using the sofa for several weeks may complicate issues. I think they would have (perhaps dodgy) grounds to consider op to have accepted the goods and accepted a remedy as opposed to a full refund.

misssarahleigh

arcon5 wrote: »

The fact op has been using the sofa for several weeks may complicate issues. I think they would have (perhaps dodgy) grounds to consider op to have accepted the goods and accepted a remedy as opposed to a full refund.

if the company advised them to use the suite until the new one arrived what were they meant to do. Demand that it be collected.

I very much doubt that when the OP was told to use the suit until the new one came, they would later be told that they had 'accepted' the item. As far as they were concerned this was good will on the part of the company.

Having said that, the first sofa came and went without issue. The sofa company are now on the second faulty sofa, so whether the OP used the first at this point has nothing to do with it.

The second sofa is faulty (as proven by the technician). Two faulty sofa's of the same type would possibly indicate an inherent fault in the suit.

borzio

Thanks for the replies so far. As you can see above we have been contacted by Harveys via their link with MSE which is fine by us, and which we appreciate. I have sent a more detailed account of the problems since ordering the original suite to the link person at Harveys and will keep you updated as to the outcome.

Without specifically addressing my problems, I think the original question shows how hard it is to define your Consumer rights despite the SadFart example on the MSE advice pages.

When does a retailer run out of repair/replace options especially a client's problem, as described by the last poster, where there is inherent problems with a range advertised by the retailer? Or for whatever reason the retailer is consistently unable to supply satisfactory goods due to for instance damage in transit?
None of the condensed story I first told describes the frustration a client of any retailer feels with going round in circles to get answers or repairs or replacements or refunds. We have been lucky in that Harveys replaced the original sofas without any problem at all, and credit must be given for that service as I'm sure many retailers would not have done so.
It would be helpful to have sticky that addresses this issue. (if I have missed such a sticky elsewhere, apologies to whoever wrote it)
As I said we'll update with the outcome to our problem with Harveys and hope to have good news to report.

arcon5

misssarahleigh wrote: »

if the company advised them to use the suite until the new one arrived what were they meant to do. Demand that it be collected.

I very much doubt that when the OP was told to use the suit until the new one came, they would later be told that they had 'accepted' the item. As far as they were concerned this was good will on the part of the company.

Having said that, the first sofa came and went without issue. The sofa company are now on the second faulty sofa, so whether the OP used the first at this point has nothing to do with it.

The second sofa is faulty (as proven by the technician). Two faulty sofa's of the same type would possibly indicate an inherent fault in the suit.

That's not the issue here though, the issue here is whether op would be deemed to have 'accepted' the goods or not. Whether they have or not, if the fault is inherent op is still legally entitled to some form of remedy -- it's just after acceptance the remedy is effectively the retailers choice, before acceptance a full refund can be sought.

misssarahleigh

arcon5 wrote: »

That's not the issue here though, the issue here is whether op would be deemed to have 'accepted' the goods or not. Whether they have or not, if the fault is inherent op is still legally entitled to some form of remedy -- it's just after acceptance the remedy is effectively the retailers choice, before acceptance a full refund can be sought.

As I've mentioned before. The OP has not accepted the goods.

The argument was that because the OP used the first sofa until the second one turned up, could tat be deemed as 'accepted'.

My point of view was, the OP hadn't accepted the goods, and using the sofa was specifically instructed by the company (like mentioned. easier to delivery the new one and take the old one away in one delivery maybe)

I don't think that the OP would have had any clue using the sofa would have made her 'accept it' as she reported the issues straight and as far as she knew thats all she had to do, as she was informed it would be replaced. There was no need for her to insist it be picked up straight away. From my point of view, I don't see this argument as valid. It sounds a more back handed way of getting out of giving her a new sofa (although i'm aware the company wasn't sayin this but it was highlighted by another poster for the sake of argument.)

If the company advised she could usethe sofa's until a replacement arrived, and thats what she did, they cannot then say she accepted the goods because she made use of the item while awaiting a new one.