Just Another SCS Thread.....

thekopite954

Sorry for my first post to be relating to this, but I have read through a few other threads regarding this, and it seems I'm still unsure on how to approach this issue!

I'll be as brief as possible with this, and I appreciate ANY advice offered!!!

Like few other people on here, I purchased a 2 seater & 3 seater leather suite from SCS, brand new on finance, towards the end of last year. The suite arrived in December, and by the beginning of Feb, my wife had noticed the centre of the 3 seater was starting to 'dip'. I called the aftercare department, and they informed me standard practice was to send out a upholserer, to inspect the issue, and report on suggested remedies. Unfortuantely, he arrived to an empty house on 2 occasions, but finally inspected the suite in March! My wife was in the house at the time, and after inspecting he explained to her that in his opinion, a repair would be justifiable. My wife asked him to explain what that repair would entail, and he explained that the dip was due to the 3 piece not having a central 'foot' to support the weight, and that they would essentially just fit one on!

My wife immediately refused the repair, stating that this would represent a manufacturer defect, as the suite came without one on in the first place!

In April, SCS rang and I spoke to them this time round! They were aware of out refusal of the repair, but explained that this was as much as the Aftercare department were willing to offer. I again explained, how can they justify offering a repair for something that was never broken, as it was not on the suite to begin with!

They have called again today, to again offer the repair, my wife spoke to them again, and reiterated to them that we would be more than accepting of a replacement suite, but a repair is unacceptable. The advisor again informed my wife that this was as much as the aftercare department were willing to do!

I've read a few threads on other peoples issues with SCS, and am mildly familiar with the SOG act etc! I read a brief bit of information informing another user to deal with the finance company, as opposed to SCS themselves, and this is where my confusion lies!

In summary, SCS are offering to repair something that wasn't installed onto the suite in the first place.....

wealdroam

thekopite954 wrote: »

I read a brief bit of information informing another user to deal with the finance company, as opposed to SCS themselves, and this is where my confusion lies!

It looks like you might be seeking information on how you can involve the finance company.

If so, have a read of MSE's Section 75 Refunds article.

In there you will see that the finance co are equally responsible for the performance of the contract.

arcon5

Sorry but you effectively have no rights to refuse a repair. You can ask for a specific remedy (repair, replacement or refund) but they can reject that if the cost is disproportionate to another remedy.

Ring them up and have them sort the repair out. The credit card company will likely reject your claim on the basis they have not breached your statutory rights by offering a remedy.

thekopite954

How can I not have the right to refuse repair, when essentially there is nothing to repair!

For something to be repaired, the original part/component must be defective....... There was no original component!

wealdroam

thekopite954 wrote: »

For something to be repaired, the original part/component must be defective.......

Correct.

The original sofa was defective.

There is a design fault, in that whoever designed the thing did not do the calculations correctly such that the sofa sagged in the middle.

The retailer has offered a remedy.

As Arcon says, or as Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act says:

(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.

arcon5

thekopite954 wrote: »

How can I not have the right to refuse repair, when essentially there is nothing to repair!

For something to be repaired, the original part/component must be defective....... There was no original component!

Because the Sales of Goods Act permits them to reject your request if it is disproportionate in cost (48B). The sofa as a whole is defective, because it isn't designed in a way to support the weight it was designed for.

You can reject for a refund only if:

- you are not considered to have accepted the goods, which isn't the case here as you've had the goods for a number of months.

- they fail to offer a remedy without causing significant inconvenience or within reasonable time.

Whether you agree or not, that's what the law says.

EDIT: seems wealdroam got there first

thekopite954

Thanks for the info guys!

I'm a bit new to this kinda thing, but I can defo see what your saying, and had a feeling, from the laws perspective, that it would be more a case of accepting the solution first!

Incidentally, if the repair doesn't 'repair' the issue, is it a case of due process, or can I escalate to having the suite replaced???

arcon5

The laws unclear as to how many 'repairs' you must accept and how long between repairs before it constitutes a breach of the 'significant inconvenience' clause. It is though changing soon, so you only have to accept the remedy once before you can reject it for a (partial) refund.

Much of it is based on what is 'reasonable' or what a 'reasonable personal' would expect based on a number of factors, such as price and description.
For example, in my opinion if they undertake 3 repairs within 3 weeks you'd be within your rights to reject it for a (partial) refund, but if it failed every 6 months it could be a whole different matter.

I say partial refund as they can deduct an amount representing the use you've had. So if goods are refunded after 12 months with an expected life of 3 years, you could expect 33% refund - assuming straight line depreciation, there could be a case to reduce the refund further if say the goods lose most of their value within the first x months/years, such as electronics or cars.

frugal_mike

arcon5 wrote: »

I say partial refund as they can deduct an amount representing the use you've had. So if goods are refunded after 12 months with an expected life of 3 years, you could expect 33% refund - assuming straight line depreciation, there could be a case to reduce the refund further if say the goods lose most of their value within the first x months/years, such as electronics or cars.

66% refund surely?