DFS usage charge

wee_scoot

ok, i get that the can charge usage if it!!!8217;s over 6 months. with regards to wanting my sofas back to their original condition, do they legally have to repair them or only patch them. or have the got me over a barrel regardless what i want

shaun_from_Africa

wee_scoot wrote: »

ok, i get that the can charge usage if it!!!8217;s over 6 months. with regards to wanting my sofas back to their original condition, do they legally have to repair them or only patch them. or have the got me over a barrel regardless what i want

A patch is a repair.
As already mentioned, you can state your preference for a repair, a replacement or refund (which can be partial) but the retailer can decline your choice if it's disproportionate in cost to them compared to one of the other remedies available.

I would imagine that a full recovering of the sofas would probably cost as much in time and materials as new items hence them not wanting (& not legally being required) to do this.

wee_scoot

Shaun, they are just back from being totally recovered and they were damaged when DFS delivered them back to me, they uplifted them and took them to their factory/warehouse to do the recovering and the damage was noticed when they were returned

MB69

ok, here are my thoughts:

Under the sale of goods act, you HAD a right to reject the goods after a certain period. This period can vary depending on product.

For example if you but a brand new £30k car and it fils after 12 months, regardless of what you are made to believe, you can say you reject the car and would not accept a replacement or repair. Obviously you would have to get expert reports on the failure for example, but it is within your rights to REJECT it and not wanting a replacement.

If you buy a £10 pillow, you can't then 6months down the line claim reject.

so the time to reject will vary on goods.

YOu had the sofa for an amount of time ( Did you say it STARTED to have problems after 6 months? )

FOr a £2000 sofa, I would expect a little more life than 6 months. We bought a £700 sofa from DFS 12 years ago and we are still using it with no issues!

So what you should have done right at the beginning was to refuse repair and claim a replacement or refund. But you accepted the repair.

Now after the last repair, you noticed a cut in the leather. How visible is it and how quickly did you notice it? Did the DFS delivery men unpack it for you and brought it in and you noticed it then? Or did it take a while for you to notice it?

If I were you, I would accept their offer of partial patch, get it done and if it comes back not matching, keep making a fuss. Keep records of all your communications as finally they will reject your requests and not deal with it anymore, then you can take the matter to small claims court and then claim it under the sale of goods act.

powerful_Rogue

MB69 wrote: »

ok, here are my thoughts:

Under the sale of goods act, you HAD a right to reject the goods after a certain period. This period can vary depending on product.

For example if you but a brand new £30k car and it fils after 12 months, regardless of what you are made to believe, you can say you reject the car and would not accept a replacement or repair. Obviously you would have to get expert reports on the failure for example, but it is within your rights to REJECT it and not wanting a replacement.

If you buy a £10 pillow, you can't then 6months down the line claim reject.

so the time to reject will vary on goods.

YOu had the sofa for an amount of time ( Did you say it STARTED to have problems after 6 months? )

FOr a £2000 sofa, I would expect a little more life than 6 months. We bought a £700 sofa from DFS 12 years ago and we are still using it with no issues!

So what you should have done right at the beginning was to refuse repair and claim a replacement or refund. But you accepted the repair.

Now after the last repair, you noticed a cut in the leather. How visible is it and how quickly did you notice it? Did the DFS delivery men unpack it for you and brought it in and you noticed it then? Or did it take a while for you to notice it?

If I were you, I would accept their offer of partial patch, get it done and if it comes back not matching, keep making a fuss. Keep records of all your communications as finally they will reject your requests and not deal with it anymore, then you can take the matter to small claims court and then claim it under the sale of goods act.

OP, I would disregard this post as it's full of inaccuracies.

For a start its the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not the Sales of Goods Act 1979.

Secondly you can't just reject a faulty good after 30 days. You can specify what you would like, however the retailer has the final say - as posted by Shaun in post 3.

MB69, if you're going to post advice including going to the small claims court, you need to be 100% correct and not giving incorrect information.

MB69

I posted the above from an experience in 2012. However it seems that the sale of goods act has now been replaced by the consumer protectio act 2015.However the gist is still the same:


You bought an item and after 6 months it developed a fault. The seller accepted the fault and repaired it as within their right. However this repair is not satisfactory and the item has failed again. How long has it been since the last repair?

As per act,

"If an attempt at repair or replacement has failed, you have the right to reject the goods for a full refund, or price reduction if you wish to keep the product.
"

To me, their attempt at repair has failed. As mentioned need to know when you took delivery of the sofa after the so called full refurbishing and how long later you noticed the big issue?

If the last attempt of the repair, and the subsequent notice of the damage is within 6 months, then the following applies:

"
If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

During this time, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there when you bought it - it's not up to you to prove that it was.
"

So you can raise it with them and ask them to prove the cut or issue with the leather wasn't there when they sent the item out.

Attitude on how you talk to these people and keeping your calm is the key to getting your way. If you are rude and disruptive, it won't do you any good.

wee_scoot

if you put your 30k car in to have a scratch repair done on the bonnet and it comes back out repaired but with a sctrach down the door and they offer you money off the bonnet repair and tell you they are not willing to take your car back in to spray it properly but will use a touch up brush instead and you might see it, would you be happy with that ? i accepted the repair at the start as it was a tiny part that was easily rectified, but after a further two repairs down the line at separate dates, which obviously unfortunately, i couldn!!!8217;t foresee, then a full recover, for it then to come back damaged. damage that they admitted probably happened in transit/delivery. they damaged it so why should i have to settle for a patch up job the might be seen afterwards.

wee_scoot

mb69, the sofas came back from being fully recovered on the 19th june, the damage was reported on the 19th june

shaun_from_Africa

MB69,
You are still posting incorrect information.:

It's the Consumer Rights Act not the Consumer Protection Act.

The right to reject goods and get a full refund following a failed repair only lasts up to 6 months from purchase.
If the first problem was reported more than 6 months after purchase, the retailer can make a partial refund which is exactly what they wish to do.

As it stands, the retailer is abiding by their CRA obligations.

shaun_from_Africa

wee_scoot wrote: »

they damaged it so why should i have to settle for a patch up job the might be seen afterwards.

It's been explained many times that you don't have to settle for a patch up job.
You can accept the partial refund that has been proposed by DFS, a proposal that is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law.