Mattressonline.co.uk - Advice please.

visidigi

norm_ wrote: »

Further email from the company.




I have already directed them to the part of the SOGA which states I can legally request a refund for goods not fit for purpose and that I want a refund.

You really need to stop reading what you want to read. You need to read and understand what is actually written.

The quote you have made above clearly says you are entitled to one of three possible resolutions but you do not have the choice to any of them.

It is up to the retailer to chose the option and that means you CANNOT insist on a refund.

norm_

visidigi wrote: »

You really need to stop reading what you want to read. You need to read and understand what is actually written.

The quote you have made above clearly says you are entitled to one of three possible resolutions but you do not have the choice to any of them.

It is up to the retailer to chose the option and that means you CANNOT insist on a refund.

No, as I understand it from SOGA guidance that I have read on Which.co.uk I can reject the goods (within a reasonable time frame) and get a refund.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/how-to-complain/

Write to the retailer confirming that you're rejecting the goods. Tell the retailer that they're responsible for collection and that you expect a full refund.

When I spoke with them on the phone they send they would refund if I sent it back. Hence the whole argument about who pays to return. (Clearly they are opting to try and replace it now because they don't want to pay for return + refund).

InsideInsurance

norm_ wrote: »

No, as I understand it from SOGA guidance that I have read on Which.co.uk I can reject the goods (within a reasonable time frame) and get a refund.

And here in lies the problem.... "a reasonable time frame". What is reasonable? (and technically it is about not accepting rather than rejecting)

In general, "reasonable" is considered a fairly short period and not some extended 30 day home trial type thing

visidigi

norm_ wrote: »

No, as I understand it from SOGA guidance that I have read on Which.co.uk I can reject the goods (within a reasonable time frame) and get a refund.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/how-to-complain/

Have you read that Page?

Contact the retailer, telling it you want the goods repaired or replaced. Be aware that the retailer can decide which to do, if it can show the cost of one option is disproportionately expensive compared to the other.

If it could show that providing you with a refund (with a deduction for the usage you've had) or a reduction on the purchase price would be a more cost effective remedy then it could insist on that instead.

That page tells you its the retailers choice.

norm_ wrote: »

When I spoke with them on the phone they send they would refund if I sent it back. Hence the whole argument about who pays to return. (Clearly they are opting to try and replace it now because they don't want to pay for return + refund).

which is EXACTLY what the SOGA states they are allowed to do, decline to do one option on the basis of disproportionate cost.

Therefore, they are entitled to provide you with a replacement, at their choice and you can't dispute it.

norm_

visidigi wrote: »

Have you read that Page?

The paragraph you are referring to is if I want a 'repair or replacement'. Which is entirely seperate from rejecting the goods.

Under the current law for the sale of goods, if goods are found to be faulty, the consumer has a short but undefined 'reasonable period' after acquiring them to reject the goods and obtain a full refund. After this period has elapsed the consumer must pursue repairs or replacements first, before refunds can be sought.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31352/12-956-supply-of-goods-short-term-reject-faulty-impact.pdf

Is it unreasonable to reject a mattress which is falling apart after less than 3 weeks when its intended lifespan is in the order of years? No would be my answer.

bod1467

The other aspect to take into account though is that once any act is undertaken commensurate with taking ownership of an item then acceptance is deemed to have occurred, thus the option to reject is nullified and hence the refund option is at the retailer's discretion. Using the mattress for 3 weeks would be deemed acceptance by a "reasonable person". (Using it for one night and deciding to reject would be fine).

That said, if you have it in Writing (email is fine) that the retailer was prepared to refund then this strengthens your argument.

norm_

SOGA S35 (2) acceptance is outlined as follows.

(2)
Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—

(a)
of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/35/section/2

So does that mean you can use it within a reasonable timeframe to see whether it's fit for purpose?

bod1467

Agreed. The criticality is HOW LONG it takes to examine and accept. In my opinion 3 weeks (for a mattress) confers acceptance; up to 1 week may be reasonable time for rejection. And that same legislation (or guidance thereof) explains that the cut-off time for acceptance is what a "reasonable person" would expect (hence my specific use of this phrase in my previous post).

You can snip-cut as much as you like from the legislation - it doesn't mean you are right. But as I said before, if you have it in writing that they would refund then you have a stronger case for taking this further).

norm_

bod1467 wrote: »

Agreed. The criticality is HOW LONG it takes to examine and accept. In my opinion 3 weeks (for a mattress) confers acceptance; up to 1 week may be reasonable time for rejection. And that same legislation (or guidance thereof) explains that the cut-off time for acceptance is what a "reasonable person" would expect (hence my specific use of this phrase in my previous post).

Yes but due to the nature of the product the fault isn't going to be immediately apparent (mattress will wear more and more with use). So I don't see how you could possibly ascertain it's conformity to contract in say a week.

Anyway I think this thread has about reached a dead end, so I appreciate all the replies offered.

wealdroam

OP, I believe you should be quoting from the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

In Section 35 of that you will find...

35 Acceptance.
(1)The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods subject to subsection (2) below—
(a)when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b)when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

From paragraph (b) it is clear to me that you have accepted the goods by sleeping on it for three weeks.

As Bod said, after one night you probably could reject the thing.

After three weeks you are looking for a remedy.
Yes, you can choose the remedy, but you cannot force the seller to provide a disproportionately costly remedy.
From SoGA 1979 (section 48B)...

(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.