Next step in getting my money back?

crei

fluffnutter wrote: »

I'd certainly try that. Their own T&Cs state..



There is no specific instruction to mention the DSR when cancelling so you could argue that you've met this condition.

Your main problem seems to be getting them to respond to you.

Yes, I thought I met the criteria, though I've also mentioned SOG in a subsequent email, which might confuse them. Yes, my main bug-bear is a lack of communication on their part.

So, to move forward, I should stick to DSR in my next letter (registered) and give them 14 days notice of a court summons?

Quentin

Yes, keep mentioning the DSR AND their own Ts + Cs, both are in your favour!!

fluffnutter

Court action, i.e. small claims court is not necessarily indicated here (not yet anyway). You're not actually out of pocket so what would you claim for? You want them to actually come and get their sofas I assume.

What you're trying to do is enforce the DSR, rather than merely claim for some money. It probably is still the small claims court, tbh. Hopefully someone can confirm.

Quentin

fluffnutter wrote: »

Court action, i.e. small claims court is not necessarily indicated here (not yet anyway). You're not actually out of pocket......

Most folk would consider paying out for 4 sofas and then getting damaged ones meant they were actually well out of pocket!


Letter before action and then County Court via MCOL should definitely be the next course of action!

crei

Thanks everyone!

fluffnutter

Quentin wrote: »

Most folk would consider paying out for 4 sofas and then getting damaged ones meant they were actually well out of pocket!


Letter before action and then County Court via MCOL should definitely be the next course of action!

Yes of course! I guess I was commenting more along the lines of trying to return something under DSR, and simply being ignored.

arcon5

Why's everybody suggesting rejecting them under DSRs?

If the items are clearly damaged then op should reject them under SOGA and make the goods available for collection. Otherwise responsibility may well be on op to return the furniture to the retailer at ops cost!

If what op says is true then I don't see how they will have anything to worry about.

fluffnutter

arcon5 wrote: »

Why's everybody suggesting rejecting them under DSRs?

If the items are clearly damaged then op should reject them under SOGA and make the goods available for collection. Otherwise responsibility may well be on op to return the furniture to the retailer at ops cost!

If what op says is true then I don't see how they will have anything to worry about.

I do appreciate that the cost of return would fall to the OP if rejected under DSR. But I'm also concerned that a long and protracted battle over whether things are damaged or not might prove equally unsatisfactory.

I read a fair few threads on here about people trying to reject goods, furniture in particular, as damaged or not fit for purpose, or not as described only to have some 'inspector' (i.e. someone paid by the company) come round and declare said items perfectly fine.

It was just another option, that's all.

arcon5

I do agree with the points made, and perhaps if you can afford (and don't mind) loosing a bit of money for the sake of getting them out of your house then fair enough.

But baring in mind the expense of returning 4 sofas and the fact this is a MS website, I think it's more appropriate to encourage the SOGA route.

I am though basing this opinion on the items being physically damaged in transit, which would be hard to dispute/easy to prove. If though the damage is minor and/or disputable in anyway by the supplier then perhaps it would be easier to use DSRs.

Maybe op could post the pictures on here?

fluffnutter wrote: »

I do appreciate that the cost of return would fall to the OP if rejected under DSR. But I'm also concerned that a long and protracted battle over whether things are damaged or not might prove equally unsatisfactory.

I read a fair few threads on here about people trying to reject goods, furniture in particular, as damaged or not fit for purpose, or not as described only to have some 'inspector' (i.e. someone paid by the company) come round and declare said items perfectly fine.

It was just another option, that's all.

wealdroam

arcon5 wrote: »

Why's everybody suggesting rejecting them under DSRs?

If the items are clearly damaged then op should reject them under SOGA and make the goods available for collection. Otherwise responsibility may well be on op to return the furniture to the retailer at ops cost!

Regulation 14 of the DSRs says (amongst other things)...

(5) Subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), the supplier may make a charge, not exceeding the direct costs of recovering any goods supplied under the contract, where a term of the contract provides that the consumer must return any goods supplied if he cancels the contract under regulation 10 but the consumer does not comply with this provision or returns the goods at the expense of the supplier.
(6) Paragraph (5) shall not apply where—
(a)the consumer cancels in circumstances where he has the right to reject the goods under a term of the contract, including a term implied by virtue of any enactment,
<snip>

In other words, the seller is not allowed to charge for the return when cancelling under DSRs if the goods are faulty.

I.e. when the goods are faulty, either DSRs or SoGA can be used to the same effect in this context.