Urgent. Please help. Sofa deliverd with unseen manufacturing fault. Consumer rights

timbstoke

Your next step is going to be small claims court if they refuse to budge. I'd suggest one more strongly worded letter, along the lines that you are sure that in their line of business, they are fully aware of a) their requirements under the Sale of Goods Act with regards to rejected goods, b) that the Sale of Goods Act makes no distinction between standard and personalised goods, and c) even if it did, making a choice from a selection of available options does not count as personalisation.

Give a sensible timeframe (21 days is fair) for a full refund to be made, head the letter with "Letter Before Action", and advise them that unless a full refund is received in that time, you will commence court proceedings without further delay.

Horizon81

I went through a similar process when my sofa was delivered, and to be honest I can't see you getting your money back over the problems that you list.

I also had a creak and noise from the springs under the seats. As my sofa is in 3 sections then I'm sure it would also be possible to lift one end whilst the other stays put. Anyway, I had a technician visit on more than one occasion and like yours, he stayed tight lipped about his opinions on the matter. I never got to see the report but I did get a letter back from the customer service team saying that the sofa was not deemed to be faulty by the technician and that my warranty would still cover any defects that could occur. The firm in question has several branches but isn't one of the main ones that advertises on TV. Suffice to say I left it at that... yes I could have pushed the SOGA again and again but if their technician says all is OK then you're essentially trying to take them to court over an unseen creak/squeak, which to me wasn't worth the aggro. Oh and all the while I tried strongly worded letters, that I rejected the sofa under SOGA etc but as already said, their technician's opinion seems to count the most.

I know that's not what you want to hear but all these people who say reject under the SOGA don't live in the real world.

bris

Am I the only one that doesn't see a fault here, if the delivery men got them into place without problems and they are solid when sited then there is no fault. Movement when lifted is not necessarily a fault, there use is for sitting, not doing weights

Horizon81

bris wrote: »

Am I the only one that doesn't see a fault here, if the delivery men got them into place without problems and they are solid when sited then there is no fault. Movement when lifted is not necessarily a fault, there use is for sitting, not doing weights

I think it's more the creaking now rather than the fact you can lift one end and the other stays put (after all, that's not what you do in normal use!). I'm surprised the technician didn't attempt to tighthen anything during his visit - perhaps that means the creak is in a lapped or push fit join. I can feel the OP's pain and it's sad that their old couch was solid as a rock, but I think it's just the way of the word nowadays, be it houses, washing machines or sofas. Nothing's built like it used to be.

And all this 'handmade in Britain' marketing on the sofa which implies a quality product is just nonsense. I knew a guy who worked in one of these factories bashing together sofas and getting handy with the staple gun on little over minumum wage. I'm sure it was piecework at one point too! It's not exactly the craftsman's little workshop they would have you believe.

neilmcl

Newlook wrote: »

Hi shaun from Africa,

Technician has been today. Didn't have knowledge of both faults, just the first mentioned one to the company, Excessive Movement in the frame, so I mentioned the other- Excessive Creaking.

He was reluctant to comment but took photographs of the areas of issue by using a paper arrow to point them out as you can't actually see the faults.

I refused to sign his paperwork, but was persuaded to as it was circled NO! Customer Does Not Accept Repair.

I asked if I would receive a copy of the report , he said no unless I pay the involved company (Sofa) for one. Also, to wait about nine days and the company (Sofa) would get back in touch. I contacted the company to say that Technician had been and that I looked forward to the result, but nothing else.

Thank you again.

Were you happy that that the technician could see the fault OK, even though he didn't specifically comment on it?

If you paid by credit card I would suggest now is the time to be contacting them about this.

tomtontom

Did the technician fix the fault, or say what the problem was?

System

Hi shaun from Africa,
Please can you advise?

I received an email yesterday 27.10.2014 form the company (sofa) following the technician report.

Most of it doesn’t make any sense as the company (sofa) has read the report wrong and confused the 3 seater with the 2 seater and vice versa. Why would they do this? I feel it is purposely done to misguide me - illegal !

Firstly

Further fault three seater sofa- On the day of inspection Thurs 24.10.2014 the technician claimed that he only came to see the three seater sofa and had no paper work instructing him to view the two seater. I was very angry and made this very clear to the technician. However, he took notes and pictures about the two seater as well. Moments into the inspection I (not the technician) recognised that the sofa had a further fault.

This fault was only noticeable if meticulously inspecting and looking for faults when viewing it head on from the front/centre of the sofa. It took some time to figure out this further fault as I found it difficult to comprehend, I just couldn’t figure out what the issue was though knew something was not right. However, the fascia arms on the three seater sofa do not twin/match with each other. The right hand arm fascia noticeably turns under the arm bolster and the studs around it taper upwards and away much sooner compared to the left hand facing arm fascia. (It is supposed to have tear-drop arms that droop down slightly, a recognised style in the Chesterfied range) This is manufacture related and when viewed from the front the arm appears odd in comparison to the opposite one, much like a seconds or damaged sofa would look, say from a cheap seconds company, which is fine if that’s what I wanted but I didn’t (I have actually been to a sofa fair and done this in the past, many years ago, an excellent sofa too).

If the arm was to be unpicked and studs replaced to match the opposite arm fascia it would definitely leave stud holes and markings in the leather. I could not believe what I was seeing however we have sheets covering both sofas now and pull them back when showing visitors etc therefore the arm has not been seen from a full central view. I mentioned this to the technician immediately, the second I noticed it. He took pictures and said that he would report the fault. I felt I had to trust the technicians, response, hard working, honest people-I hope! I reported the fault for completeness.


Further fault-Two seater sofa -

The two seater front wooden leg bows slightly inwards which is noticeable on very close, meticulous inspection with the cover removed. I am not a professional sofa producer or quality control trained inspector therefore I did not notice this further faults previously. However, I genuinely feel that this may cause future damage to the frame, unbalanced weight/pressure on the frame etc therefore causing the springs to rub and squeak in the future- if it has not already done to date.

I immediately brought this to the attention of the technician, the second that I noticed it. Again he took pictures and said that he would report it. I trust the professional technicians, response. He also mentioned that it would take about nine days in total, so stay calm, use the sofas (we haven’t as I am not sure about my rights on that yet) and wait for the companies (sofa) response.

Keeping in mind that both sofas are in an unused condition due to the stress caused by the company ( sofa) as I stated in earlier emails to K and L Sales Executive, and a formal letter of complaint which was sent by special delivery. I feel it is acceptable that the faults were not noticed sooner, due to being unused and unseen for over nine days and me having a short break away through being distraught and not able to tolerate to look at the sofas. However I did report the faults later on return for completeness and I knew the technician would and provide photographic evidence too (as he is the eyes and ears for the company (sofa) , so to speak). Also due to the inconvenience of the technicians visit I had to cancel a short break away to my sisters, so I had to leave immediately for my a short break as soon as the technician left.

Also, the faults were put in writing for completeness, but only yesterday the 27.10.14 after unpacking. Does this matter as their terms don’t apply to me as I explicitly rejected the goods earlier by email and also by a formal special delivery letter?

Secondly,

The email 27.10.2014 from the company (sofa) is abrupt with an answer to everything. Mostly that I did not report the new faults on delivery, or within hours of receiving them. Even though time and time again I explicitly told them that I wanted to reject the goods under the sales of goods act, the goods are unused and covered.They enforced a technician report, therefore I told them they were entitled to inspect the goods to ensure they are indeed faulty and this isn't either (a) normal or (b) damage that I have caused.

In addition, I stated that I am entitled to get a full refund including the cost of returning the items as they were faulty damaged goods and not fit for purpose. As a result their terms and conditions do not apply to me, as I explicitly said that I had rejected the goods earlier.


(Part 1 (Of part 1) Yesterday’s Email 27.10.2014 From Chesterfiels Sofa Company Salford)

" Please see attached for the technicians report. As you can see he has fully passed on your comments regarding the shape of the arm etc but does not agree that these represent fault. The main reason the technician was sent, wobbly frame when lifting, has been rejected. He has advised he can hear a noise when the sofa is in use however this is easily rectifiable as this is just the metal spring touching the wooden framework.

With regard to dust being visible, this wasn't logged on delivery or in any of the emails and therefore we cannot say this has happened in the factory or accept this as fault. Equally the leg has never been mentioned to us and could have been knocked at any point following delivery and also will not be accepted as fault.

With regard to the arm, again this is not something you have mentioned to us on delivery. This is a handmade product with each stud placed individually. Some variances are to be expected and are part of the handmade nature of the product.

Kind Regards

K...........
Sales Executive "

.........................................................................................




Technician Report [/B][/B] 27.10.2014
HOME........ ID:
CLIENT: THE CHe…LD CO…./ F..EST SOFA LI..TED
DELIVERY DATE: 15/10/2014DM ORDER NUM:''''''''''
COMPLAINT: 32536
15/10/2014
CUSTOMER: P…. Fl…h..R
LEATHER
23/10/2014
BATCH LABEL PHOTO TAKEN: YES
TIME TAKEN: 20 mins
APPROVED: NO
DATE FILED: 23/10/2014 .
24/10/2014

NOTES: 2 seat sofa
FAULT CODE: UPHOLSTERY - MANUFACTURING FAULT SUB CODE:CREAKING FRAME
DESCRIPTION: ACTION TAKEN: ON INSPECTION 2 SEATER HAS A LOUD CREAK WHEN SAT ON.
I CAN CONFIRM THIS IS ON REAR SPRING RAIL AS THIS HAS FRICTION AND MOVEMENT.
CUSTOMER ALSO ADVISED SAW DUST KEEPS APPEARING UNDERNEATH FURNITURE.

CUSTOMER INSISTS ON A FULL REPLACEMENT AND ADVISED SHE IS WELL AWARE OF HER RIGHTS UNDER THE SALES OF GOODS ACT.
ADVISED CUSTOMER I WILL REPORT MY FINDINGS FULLY AND ONLY AGREED THAT YES I CAN HEAR A CREAK BUT MADE NO COMMENTS ON QUALITY OF FAULTS WITH FURNITURE.


Three seat sofa
FAULT CODE: UPHOLSTERY - MANUFACTURING FAULT SUB CODE:FIT OFF COVER
DESCRIPTION: ACTION TAKEN: 3 SEATER HAS RIGHT HAND FACING FRONT ARM FASCIA AS IT TURNS UNDER ARM THE BOLSTER WITH STUDS AROUND IT TAPERS AWAY MUCH SOONER COMPARED TO LEFT HAND FACING ARM.
PLEASE REFER TO PICS AS THIS IS CLEARER TO SEE.
THIS IS MANUFACTURING RELATED AS WHEN VIEWED FROM THE FRONT OF 3 SEATER THESE ARMS APPEARS ODD.

AGAIN CUSTOMER INSISTS ON REJECTING FURNITURE. THIS IS BEYOND REPAIR AS IF ARM UNPICKED YOU WILL BE LEFT WITH STAPLE HOLES AND STUD MARKS.
FAULT CODE: UPHOLSTERY - MANUFACTURING FAULT SUB CODE: INCORRECTLY ASSEMBLED


Two seat sofa
Fault Code Manufacturing Fault
DESCRIPTION: ACTION TAKEN: 2 SEATER HAS FRONT LEFT HAND FACING LEG LEANING INWARDS.
THIS IS EITHER THE T NUT IS NOT INSERTED STRAIGHT OR CASTOR BLOCK IS NOT STRAIGHT.

CUSTOMER IS ADAMANT ON A FULL REPLACEMENT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY REPAIRS.
IF REPAIRED WILL NEED TO STRAIGHTEN T NUT OR CASTOR BLOCK. FAULT CODE: INVALID CLAIM SUB CODE:NO FAULTS FOUND


DESCRIPTION: ACTION TAKEN: CUSTOMER MAIN ISSUE IS THAT WHEN THE FURNITURE IS LIFTED BY ONE ARM IE TO PULL THE LEFT HAND FACING ARM UPWARDS, CUSTOMER FEELS THE FLEX IN BOTH FRONT AND REAR SPRING RAIL IS DEFECTIVE AND THAT FRAME TWISTS.
IN MY OPINION THIS IS NOT A FAULT AND FURNITURE IS NOT MADE TO BE LIFTED BY ONE ARM ONLY OR AT ALL.

AS AN EXAMPLE IF THIS WAS REPLACED I CAN GUARANTEE THE REPLACEMENT ITEM WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
ADVISED CUSTOMER I WILL REPORT MY FINDINGS FULLY. I DID NOT COMMENT ON DEFECTS OR THAT THIS IS NOT DEFECTIVE AS CUSTOMER WAS VERY PERSISTENT THAT THIS IS FAULTY FURNITURE AND IS ADAMANT THAT FURNITURE WILL BE RETURNED.

FURTHER VISIT REQUIRED (Y/N)? NO
ESTIMATED REPAIR/COST TIME: COST OF JOB £25
NO COLOUR MATCH SAMPLE TAKEN:
CUSTOMER SATISFIED: NO
PARTS USED QUANTITY
Date Added: 23/10/2014 FULL ITEM PICTURE
Date Added: 23/10/2014 CUSTOMER SIGNATURE
Date Added: 23/10/2014 FAULT
Date Added: 23/10/2014 3 str left hand facing arm finished correct shape.
557853 20/10/2014 FS/ZFI001
Date Added: 23/10/2014 FULL ITEM PICTURE
Date Added: 23/10/2014 FAULT
Date Added: 23/10/2014 FAULT
Date Added: 23/10/2014

........................................................................................


MY reply to The Sofa Company 27.10.014
Bold Black text me/ customer response to company (sofa) claims
[/B]

Dear…K….….,

May I politely bring to your attention that you have misread the report ,the report has been misunderstood?

• The main reason the technician was sent, wobbly frame when lifting, has been rejected. Customer replies - This mentioned fault is for the three seater sofa. The same one with the faulty facia arms not matching, where the studs are odd and the teardrop arms do not twin/match. Not the two seater sofa with the faulty squeaky spring.

• He has advised he can hear a noise when the sofa is in use however this is easily rectifiable as this is just the metal spring touching the wooden framework. Customer replies -This is on the two seater sofa. However, you incline that the report claims that the faults are related to just the one sofa, even though the report clearly states that this it is not the case.

Please stop trying to misguide me from the faults with the sofa and stop trying to direct me from my legal rights, surely as a professional trader you know that it is illegal to do so.

• Equally the leg has never been mentioned to us and could have been knocked at any point following delivery and also will not be accepted as fault.

Customer replies- No one has knocked the two seater sofa leg at any time and it is up to you to prove differently. As stated in your report it is manufacturing fault due to Tnut etc. Also the two seater leg is a front wooden one that bows inwards which is only noticeable on very close, meticulous inspection. I am not a professional sofa producer or quality control trained therefore I did not notice this previously. However , I genuinely feel that this may cause future damage to the frame, as it may cause it to become unbalanced therefore cause the springs to rub against the unbalanced frame and cause more fault, if it has not already done so to date.

• With regard to the arm, again this is not something you have mentioned to us on delivery. This is a handmade product with each stud placed individually. Some variances are to be expected and are part of the handmade nature of the product.
Customer replies- I am not Quality Control Trained and only noticed the fault after meticulously inspecting the sofa during the technicians visit. I found it difficult to comprehend even after five minutes of staring at the THREE SEATER SOFA. As a result, it was difficult to put into words or to explain.I pointed the fault out to my husband later the same evening, however he struggled to see the fault- he is not Quality Control Trained either. However, as stated in your report due to manufacturing fault they do not twin with each other, are odd and can not be repaired due to pin holes etc. I mentioned this to the technician immediately, the second I noticed it.

Also, keeping in mind that both sofas are in an unused condition and still placed in an unused room, due to the stress caused by your company as stated in earlier emails to (K.. and L...). Therefore, it is acceptable that the faults were not noticed sooner, due to being unused and unseen for over a week.


Further faults in more detail,I noticed by myself on closer meticulous inspection during the technician’s visit 23.10.14, therefore it was I who pointed the faults out to the technician who instantly assured me that he would report my further concerns to The Che.... Company ta For... Sofas Ltd with photographic evidence. Then returned to completing his report on the unused faulty and not fit for purpose Vintage Leather Pax... Chesterfield sofas 23.10.2014.

• The teardrop arm on the 3 seater sofa - the right hand facing front arm fascia noticeably turns under the arm bolster while all of the studs around it taper away much sooner compared to the left hand facing front arm. (This well recognised tear-drop style is supposed to droop slightly into a tear-drop shape- one arm does the other doesn't) This is manufacturing related as when viewed from the front centre of three seat sofa the arms appear odd in comparison, much like a seconds/damaged sofa would look say from a Cheap Seconds Company. This is beyond repair as if the arm is unpicked it would definitely leave with stud holes and markings in the leather.

You were entitled to view the goods however I am explicitly rejecting the goods under The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

Following your final decision, I will wait silently and will be in touch again after fourteen days’ time after receiving responses from Visa Company and Trading Standards.

Thank you
(customer)

................................................................................................


Dear The Che...... Company/ ta For... Sofa Ltd,

I remind you that I am explicitly rejecting the goods under The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

Under The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) I am entitled to a full refund including the cost of returning the items as the retailer’s choice of repair, replace or refund only comes into practice once the goods are deemed to be accepted- hence my notice, I explicitly reject the goods under The Sale of Goods Act (amended).
See http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...e-of-goods-act
Acceptance doesn't simply mean that you have taken possession of the goods as you are allowed to inspect and test the goods after delivery to check that they are as described and in conformity with the contract. If they are faulty when delivered or within a reasonable time afterwards, you are legally entitled to reject them for a full refund.
You were entitled to inspect the goods to ensure that they are indeed faulty and this is not either (a) normal or (b) damage that I have caused.

You claim, by email, that the sofas were made to specification therefore the rules did not apply to me. However, even if the sofa was fully personalised and made to measure, specific fabric and different feet, this wouldn't have any effect on my right of rejection and requirement for a full refund if it was faulty on delivery. The personalised aspect only comes into play if you are trying to get a refund under the Consumer Contract Regulations (what took over from the Distance Selling Regulations in May this year).

The retailer’s choice of repair, replace or refund only comes about once the goods are deemed to be accepted, hence I explicitly reject the goods under the sales of goods act, which with regret I have done.

See http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...e-of-goods-act
S34 & 36 SOGA
Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound on request to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with
the contract.

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

In conclusion, I will be in touch again within 15 days, after a response from the Visa Company and Trading Standards.
Yours sincerely (customer)

...................................................................................

Reply From Company (sofa) Today 28.10.2014
Hi,

Again I state under our terms and conditions we would offer you a repair in the first instance.

I would state that the goods were accepted following delivery on Wednesday 15th. We advised you verbally that day that in line with our terms and conditions we would be offering you a repair if a fault was found (in relation to squeaking and the opposite side of the sofa not moving when lifted from one end) which you accepted and was then backed up by an email from ourselves. customer replies (What?)

With regard to the additional points you have raised:

We don't accept a fault with the front facing of the arms - as discussed this is a handmade product and minor variances are to be expected. The technician reported your comments regarding the facings however he does not back up your belief that this represents fault. I think our assertion that this is normal minor variation is strengthened by the fact it took you 9 days to even notice the differences and your husband can't recognise the difference even when you point it out to him.--- customer replies (Define minor) (Yes hubby does not have a trained eye either, he has only seen the sofa’s for two mins in total) (He is stressed too)

With regard to the leg its not possible for us to verify what happens once the goods are in your home. This is why our terms explicitly state
"1.5.3 If we accidentally damage goods in the course of delivery, then our liability for that damage is limited to the repair, refund or replacement of the goods or the value thereof. To ensure your claim is not
rejected please make a note of any damage on the signed delivery note or in writing within 48 hours of delivery."
We are unable to take responsibility for accidental damage after this timescale has passed.
Please note the leg will not come into contact with the springs so could never affect them.--
(customer replies This is your terms which do not reply to me as I explicitely rejected the faultygoods as they are not fir for purpose)

I am happy to send the technician back out to you but we reject your request for return.

Kind Regards

K................
Sales Executive.

...................................................................................



In Concusion/closure to this long process, I will not answer to this/above email although I feel I want to respond (with the customer replies bold comments), but I won't email as I have already stated that I will sit silently until I receive a response from the Visa Company and Trading Standards which I want to report later today.

Please can you advise me as what to put in Visa Company template which I downloaded of this website? I am lost in the tons of mitigation on both sides, which I foolishly allowed to happen.

Thank you

wealdroam

Just a small point, but important anyway.

You have indicated several times that you are in contact with Visa.

As you appear to have made this purchase with a Visa Debit Card, you should be discussing a possible chargeback with your card issuer, i.e. your bank... not the Visa company.

Have a read of MSE's Chargeback article for more detail.

As an aside... even if you had used a credit card, then you should be contacting the card issuer, not the Visa company.

I would respectfully suggest that whatever you put in that letter to your bank, the important point is to keep it brief. In my opinion, anything more than one side of A4 is too long.
Of course you can invite them to ask for further detail if they feel it necessary, but as a first contact... keep it short.
There is no place for 'stress', 'visiting sisters', etc.

System

Thank you wealdrome,

Your advice is very helpful.

Contact the bank, no boring mitigation unless requested by the bank later in the process.

Do you know if I can go down the Visa route as well as the Trading Standards Sale of Goods Act. Or am i only able to take one option?

Thank you.

wealdroam

Newlook wrote: »

Thank you wealdrome,

Your advice is very helpful.

Contact the bank, no boring mitigation unless requested by the bank later in the process.

Do you know if I can go down the Visa route as well as the Trading Standards Sale of Goods Act. Or am i only able to take one option?

Thank you.

Not sure what you are expecting Trading Standards to do.
They do not handle individual complaint on behalf of a consumer.

Trading Standards departments are there to ensure traders behave. If the trader doesn't trade properly then there are sanctions they can apply... even prosecutions. None of that will get you what you want.

If you want to go down the SoGA route, then you can do that.

If you want Trading Standards to be informed, them you should do that via CAB.
More info on Trading Standards / CAB here:

Reporting a problem to Trading Standards

I think you need to decide whether you are going down the SoGA route, leading to possible court action, or trying for a chargeback.

I would be inclined to go down the chargeback route first.
If a chargeback is unsuccessful, then I would think very hard about whether court action is going to work.

Maybe sending the seller a Letter Before Action would encourage the seller to do the right thing.