Should the retailer bear the cost difference?

2Home2Away

I bought a leather sofa from a main UK retailer 8 months ago. After a month we noticed that the leather was faulty and asked the retailer in their aftercare scheme to review it. The sofa assessor agreed that the leather was faulty. At first everything seemed straight forward, they offered a like for like swap which we were more than happy with. I checked with them at this point that there would be no cost to us, they agreed there would not be They took a long time to come back about this, which we put down to working practices during covid. We were patient and eventually they came back to say that our colour leather was now no longer in stock and offered us an alternative. There was no way to see this colour online and I asked more than once for a URL to their site where this could be viewed, to see if it was the right colour. Again, a lengthy delay and eventually I was told this probably wasn’t available also. I was then left to wait again for them to come back to me. Eventually they did and they took me to the website page that had since been updated, for our sofa, and said I should chose one of the new colours. There was a much wider selection and I asked if swatches could be sent. I again checked there would be no cost for us, as now the cost of the sofa had increased from the price we paid. The reaffirmed there would be no cost to us. Once the swatches arrived we chose one and rang them back to put the order in. The employee I spoke to took the order and reconfirmed again there would be no cost to us. She then phoned me back a few days later to tell me that actually they were wrong and there would be a £500 cost to us as it wasn’t considered like for like, the leather was different!
She offered a small contribution to the £500 for their errors, which I rejected and asked them to escalate. I then spoke to another employee in the furniture department who said they were under no obligation to do anything more than refund me or provide a like for like swap. I explained I would be delighted with a like for like swap and that is what I thought was being offered when I picked the same sofa albeit with a different shade of grey leather. She then said they would meet me half way due to the inconvenience. I explained to her that she was putting the burden of cost on me for a faulty good they gave me and no other option to replace other than with the only leather they had available. She said under consumer law they were only obliged to give a like for like or refund. I asked her if she could see the ludicrousness of the situation that the only like for like incurred a £500 cost to me? I am a very long standing customer with this company and have always admired their commitment to the customer. Do I have any recourse under consume law or anything else as they have said it has been escalated as high as it can be and this is their final offer.

ItsComingRome

No, you have no recourse.

They are entitled to pick the remedy.  Whilst you were told there would be no additional charge, it looks like a simple mistake was made.  Mistakes happen.

Jenni_D

Does the "new" sofa have the same name as the "old" sofa, or is it an entirely different model? (I'm not sure they can include general retail price increases of the same model when offering a replacement).

Regardless, as you reported the fault within the first month (and certainly within 6 months) then the fault is deemed inherent and the onus lies with the retailer to provide a remedy - repair, replacement or (full) refund. The retailer is also liable for all costs in providing the remedy.

If you're not happy to pay an additional sum for the replacement then simply take a full refund (as they're offering) and take your business elsewhere.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The Consumer Rights Act doesn't prevent you from seeking damages, this appears to be akin to loss of a bargain.

When you say main UK retailer do you mean national like DFS, etc? 

You could have a search on the CEOemail site to get a higher level of customer facing staff. 

If they won't budge it might be worth a letter before action, you'd be required to mitigate (lessen) your losses so finding an appropriate substitute at a fair cost (from anywhere) and seeking the difference from the current retailer may be possible. 

It's worth noting, do you have the current sofa still in your home or have they taken it away? If you still have it you should factor in 8 months worth of use. 

Jenni_D

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It's worth noting, do you have the current sofa still in your home or have they taken it away? If you still have it you should factor in 8 months worth of use. 

In principle you're right, but the OP reported the fault within the first month so the "clock" stopped at that point, meaning usage was at the retailer's choice not the OP's.  

DB1904

Jenni_D said:

Does the "new" sofa have the same name as the "old" sofa, or is it an entirely different model? (I'm not sure they can include general retail price increases of the same model when offering a replacement).

Regardless, as you reported the fault within the first month (and certainly within 6 months) then the fault is deemed inherent and the onus lies with the retailer to provide a remedy - repair, replacement or (full) refund. The retailer is also liable for all costs in providing the remedy.

If you're not happy to pay an additional sum for the replacement then simply take a full refund (as they're offering) and take your business elsewhere.

If the sofa had gone up in cost and the retailer won't stand the cost then they'd simply refund the OP. Makes no difference what it's called. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jenni_D said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It's worth noting, do you have the current sofa still in your home or have they taken it away? If you still have it you should factor in 8 months worth of use. 

In principle you're right, but the OP reported the fault within the first month so the "clock" stopped at that point, meaning usage was at the retailer's choice not the OP's.  

Although the nonconformity is deemed to be in place as OP has reported the issue within the first 6 months if the consumer exercises their final right to reject after 6 months, even if reported earlier, the refund may be reduced. 

Although the OP isn't looking to do this specifically, in the view of being reasonable it seems sensible to adhere to the same principles, a sofa should last years so the reduction should be slight