DFS refuse to refund a sofa we cannot use due to mis selling. What are our rights?

theoretica

Of course softness is measurable and objective.  You put a known weight on it and measure how much it compresses.

Redfairy

theoretica said:

Of course softness is measurable and objective.  You put a known weight on it and measure how much it compresses.

Thank you. 

Redfairy

comeandgo said:

I don’t think there has been any mis selling.  Soft is not a measurable commodity so what you regard as soft someone else may not.  You may be better trying to swap your sofa for another on say Facebook?  As least with a second hand sofa you will know exactly what you are getting.

It took months of going to furniture shops trying the various sofas. It is very hard for me to travel to them or try them. We have not bought a new sofa for over 20 years and decided to treat ourselves to a new one that actually met my disability needs. I appreciate your facebook suggestion but I do not think swapping 2 brand new £3K sofas for a second hand bedded in one will help me.  

eskbanker

theoretica said:

Of course softness is measurable and objective.  You put a known weight on it and measure how much it compresses.

https://www.satra.com/spotlight/article.php?id=485 refers to an 'indentometer' for doing this, every day's a school day!

Jumblebumble

Alderbank said:

Just to clarify, you found a sofa in the shop which was soft enough for your needs and therefore decided to buy two of that model.
The salesperson was aware of your specific requirement.
The sofas you eventually received differed from the model you were shown in the shop.

There are two faults here, they do not conform to the model you were shown and they do not conform to your specific requirements which were agreed with the shop.

Tell the shop you are rejecting them as is your right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because the goods are in breach of Section 10: Goods to be fit for particular purpose and Section 14: Goods to match a model seen or examined

May I observe that these are not proven faults but are alleged faults which the shop are likely  to vigorously defend by telling the court that the OP tried out the sofa in the shop and then bought the same ones and that they cannot understand the problem.

Jumblebumble

Redfairy said:

Thank you . Alderbank we did exercise our right to reject the sofa 4 days after delivery under section 14. After numerous emails, letters( which were signed for, but they claim were never received ) and an inspection by DFS,  they have all said it has been rejected under section 75 rules as not faulty. We have stated numerous times we are NOT claiming under section 75 but are using our right to reject under section 14 of the consumer act. DFS have never denied that we only bought the sofas as they were the only ones in the shop that fit my needs, or that we weren't told they would need bedding in for at least 6 months. Clearly had we been told this at the point of sale we would not have purchased them. They seem to be actively misunderstanding what we are saying. They demanded an inspection even though we agreed the sofas were not faulty. They are just not the ones we purchased from them due to my disability. We are hitting our heads against a brick wall and have even sent a letter before court action to them, but only received an email with sketchy information about the case. We cannot understand why they won't just refund the sofas. They are brand new and unused and we think we are clearly within our rights. Softness is comparable when its the same people, comparing the same set of sofas.  Just because one is new it doesn't mean it should be completely different. We were under the impression that it would be the same as the one we tried on display,  only newer. We don't see the point on trying out lots of sofas in the showroom, if the one we get is completely different. The one we tried was extremely soft and comfortable. The one delivered is a lot harder and I am unable to even sit on it. DFS even suggested inviting all our friends and neighbours around regularly to break it in. This was completely unacceptable in my opinion.  Thank you for you advice everyone.

The only bits of perhaps unhelpful advice is that
 Any business that simply refunded money in full under these circumstances would go bust in a very short time.

Alderbank

Redfairy said:

Thank you . Alderbank we did exercise our right to reject the sofa 4 days after delivery under section 14. After numerous emails, letters( which were signed for, but they claim were never received ) and an inspection by DFS,  they have all said it has been rejected under section 75 rules as not faulty. We have stated numerous times we are NOT claiming under section 75 but are using our right to reject under section 14 of the consumer act. DFS have never denied that we only bought the sofas as they were the only ones in the shop that fit my needs, or that we weren't told they would need bedding in for at least 6 months. Clearly had we been told this at the point of sale we would not have purchased them. They seem to be actively misunderstanding what we are saying. They demanded an inspection even though we agreed the sofas were not faulty. They are just not the ones we purchased from them due to my disability. We are hitting our heads against a brick wall and have even sent a letter before court action to them, but only received an email with sketchy information about the case. We cannot understand why they won't just refund the sofas. They are brand new and unused and we think we are clearly within our rights. Softness is comparable when its the same people, comparing the same set of sofas.  Just because one is new it doesn't mean it should be completely different. We were under the impression that it would be the same as the one we tried on display,  only newer. We don't see the point on trying out lots of sofas in the showroom, if the one we get is completely different. The one we tried was extremely soft and comfortable. The one delivered is a lot harder and I am unable to even sit on it. DFS even suggested inviting all our friends and neighbours around regularly to break it in. This was completely unacceptable in my opinion.  Thank you for you advice everyone.

'...we agreed the sofas were not faulty.'

Stop saying that!
In CRA-speak they are faulty. 'Faulty' means they don't conform to the requirements of CRA and they are faulty because they don't conform in two specific ways, s10 and s14.

'Clearly had we been told this at the point of sale we would not have purchased them. They seem to be actively misunderstanding what we are saying.'

Clear to you perhaps but a very mixed message to others.
There are only two grounds for rejecting in CRA, either the contract is faulty in some way or you have changed your mind. Change of mind only applies in limited circumstances not applicable to you.
You say they ignored your letter before action. If it states something like
'We bought two sofas. We agree they are not faulty. We don't want them and we cannot understand why they won't just refund the sofas'
then you have no case in law and you would lose.

You should now review and collect your evidence that:

• the trader agreed your particular requirement and was aware that the sofa in the shop met your needs
• the trader accepts that the sofas supplied are different from the sample in the shop and do not meet your needs.

Stuff in writing such as emails is much better than 'he said, she said'. 

Silly stuff like telling you to bring lots of people round to jump up and down on them is valuable because it shows that they are aware that the goods do not conform and are failing to remedy it in the way required by law.

If you can do this and post back here we can help you to write a Letter Before Action that they won't ignore.

eskbanker

Redfairy said:

We have tried numerous times contacting DFS, the CEO, the furniture ombudsman, the credit company . They have all said that as the sofas are not faulty they cannot refund under section 75. We are not disputing that they are not faulty, just the fact that I am unable to bed them in properly as I cannot sit on them.

Redfairy said:

they have all said it has been rejected under section 75 rules as not faulty. We have stated numerous times we are NOT claiming under section 75 but are using our right to reject under section 14 of the consumer act.

Just to pick up on the section 75 references, provided the financing structure complies with s75 requirements, then a claim can be made against the creditor for any (material) breach of contract by the supplier - there is no requirement to demonstrate a faulty product as such, in that a supplier refusing to comply with CRA s14 is breaching the contract by doing so.

Edit: the above post explains the concept more fully, i.e. 'faulty' doesn't imply 'broken', and non-compliance with the showroom model is equally valid.

tightauldgit

theoretica said:

Of course softness is measurable and objective.  You put a known weight on it and measure how much it compresses.

Softness is measurable - but the point where a sofa is considered 'soft' is entirely subjective.

Just like saying height is objectively measurable but when someone is considered short or tall is a subjective thing.

So asking for a 'soft' sofa doesn't really mean anything. 

However, if you try a sofa in the shop and buy it then the one you receive should certainly be of similar softness. 

tightauldgit

Jumblebumble said:

Alderbank said:

Just to clarify, you found a sofa in the shop which was soft enough for your needs and therefore decided to buy two of that model.
The salesperson was aware of your specific requirement.
The sofas you eventually received differed from the model you were shown in the shop.

There are two faults here, they do not conform to the model you were shown and they do not conform to your specific requirements which were agreed with the shop.

Tell the shop you are rejecting them as is your right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because the goods are in breach of Section 10: Goods to be fit for particular purpose and Section 14: Goods to match a model seen or examined

May I observe that these are not proven faults but are alleged faults which the shop are likely  to vigorously defend by telling the court that the OP tried out the sofa in the shop and then bought the same ones and that they cannot understand the problem.

Going by the OP the shop have admitted that the sofa supplied does not match the sofa tried out but have said it requires bedding in. Something that wasn't apparently told to the customer when they sold them a 'soft' sofa.