Fair compensation for faulty goods

JKP

I bought some leather sofas almost three years ago and the leather is peeling very badly from the back rests and seats. I paid for an indpendent report which found that there was a manufactuing fault. The retailer has only offered me a refund of 40% of the purchase price or 40% of a replacement from their store. Is this reasonable?

wealdroam

JKP wrote: »

I bought some leather sofas almost three years ago and the leather is peeling very badly from the back rests and seats. I paid for an indpendent report which found that there was a manufactuing fault. The retailer has only offered me a refund of 40% of the purchase price or 40% of a replacement from their store. Is this reasonable?

Yes.

shaun_from_Africa

I believe that Trading standards have also stated that you should be entitled to a refund to cover the cost of the report you obtained. (although I'm not sure where to find if this is indeed correct).

You may be able to push for a slightly better deal from the retailer.
40% refund of the original price seems okay to me, but you may get lucky if you ask for a higher % discount if you buy replacement sofas from them instead of taking the money to one of their competitors.

neilmcl

40% seems reasonable to me and inline with their legal obligations. By all means push for more though.

McKneff

Push for more discount and apply for the amount of money you spent on the report, you are entitled to that also seeing as it was a manufacturing fault.

JKP

Thank you all for your advice, When we bought them we were told they were good quality and we expected them to last many years which they have not as we are now forced to replace them. we would not have bought them at all if we had known they were not real leather. 40% suggests they should last around 5 years which I think is unreasonable for good quality furniture.

wealdroam

JKP wrote: »

40% suggests they should last around 5 years which I think is unreasonable for good quality furniture.

No, 40% suggests that they have lost 60% of their value in three years.

You are assuming depreciation is linear.

I would go as far as suggesting that the value had probably decreased by 50% in the first year, and maybe 20% and 15% in years two and three respectively.
Somewhere beyond year five, depreciation will be minimal.
That does not mean that beyond year five they automatically should be thrown away... they could last much longer.
It just means that after that point they have no value.

This explains why some of us think a refund of 40% is good, but as suggested above, try and negotiate a better figure, and also get them to refund the cost of producing that report.

judyb

I would be very interested to know what tests were done to ascertain that it was a manufacturing fault as these can generally only be one by the leather being tested. If the leather was not tested you are lucky that the report as been accepted as proof.
Most manufacturers warranties are only for the first year so to get as much as 40% is very good.
Leather finishes often peel on these areas if correct care products an processes are not used but these are not usually advised by the retailer.
Hope ths helps
Judyb
Leather consultant

shaun_from_Africa

Most manufacturers warranties are only for the first year so to get as much as 40% is very good.

But what the OP was using as the basis for their claim was nothing to do with the manufacturers warranty. They were using their statutory rights given under the Sale of goods act.

ThumbRemote

Depending on the original cost of the sofas, I'd be holding out for more - if they were expensive I'd be wanting at least 2/3 the original price back.

By law they are entitled to make a deduction for any use you've had of the product, but unfortunately there's no consensus of how much a discount should be.

JKP, you can reject the retailers offers and state what figure you consider acceptable. If they won't agree you can take it to the small claims court, there's no guarantee of success but they do tend to side with the customer.

paddyrg

I am with ThumbRemote here - if you were told they were premium quality/should last 20+ yrs then 40% is derisory, but if they were cheapo, then 40% would seem better. In either case, they have offered 40% which shows they agree the goods are faulty, now you are just arguing over *how* faulty and how long they should have lasted. You could always threaten/try the courts.

I think your linear depreciation isn't unreasonable for a utility item which has little 'new' premium (compared with a car), so would agree that the manufacturer would have a tough time pleading the item was designed to last over 5yrs if they value it at 40% after 3.