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

RefluentBeans

Personally I would actually think it’s almost impossible to get a feeling of what a new sofa will feel like in the store, without replacing the sofa every week. 

I hope I’m wrong, and hope you manage to get some relieve from DFS, but I don’t think it’s going to be an easy win. I think unless you asked (or they stated) if the store sofa will be exactly the same softness as your new sofa, right from day one; a reasonable assumption is that there is some level of bedding in required. 

I don’t really see how they could break the CRA if they provided the sofa you ordered. So I think it comes down to contracts, and what formed the contract (including verbal agreements, signage, implications) and that relies on the weight of evidence from either side, and it’s hard to say which way it’ll go without seeing both sides and who has the most compelling arguments on the day. 

screech_78

I can’t see you having a valid case for a refund. 

You have nothing in writing to state that you were assured this sofa would be ok for your back problems (how could they say that anyway) and so it’s he said, she said. 

Sofas, like mattresses, have a settlement period. I personally hate soft seating sofas as they make my back worse when you sink right in and then can’t back up. I’ll always go for a firmer option and whilst I appreciate that you have a different issue, I’d be amazed if you had a claim for mis-selling.

In any event though, as you’ve sent an LBA, you really need to follow through on your threats. 

tightauldgit

Redfairy said:

RefluentBeans said:

I agree that ‘softness’ can be measured. The OP has stated that the display sofa was stained, so I assume probably fairly old. I think the average person expects that the sofa will get softer over time, and so measuring the ‘softness’ of something should be done on a near identical sofa in a near identical condition - meaning in this case new. If I tried a pair of Doc Martens in their store that was a display model (and thus tried on by lots of people) the leather will be softened by wear, but when I get home my Docs cause blisters - they missold me, right? Well no - the shoes there were demo shoes and a reasonable expectation would be that the new shoes would be stiffer than the worn shoes. 

If they said the sofa was going to be as soft as this sofa right now then I agree that it’s missold. But if they say it’s the exact same sofa made from the exact same materials then, even if that response was in answering the question ‘will the new sofa be as soft this sofa here’, they didn’t say anything other than facts. Didn’t say it would be or wouldn’t be. If they did say it would be as soft as that sofa right out of the box, then yes it was missold but I’m guessing it wasn’t recorded and is a he said she said situation from a conversation from months ago. 

I also agree that soft, stiff, hard, flexible etc are all subjective terms, and so the argument of this isn’t soft won’t have much weight I don’t think. 

In any measure, if you’ve sent a LBA, and they’ve sent you their response then they’re done engaging with you as they feel you’ve rejected all other offers now. The next step is to take it court and let a judge decide how it goes. From what you’ve said, it seems like a LBA was used as a negotiation tactic. Unfortunately I think it was maybe too early, and you’ve shut the conversation down now, so got to take it to court (or whatever action you said you were going to take) and prepare for that. 

RefluentBeans said:

I agree that ‘softness’ can be measured. The OP has stated that the display sofa was stained, so I assume probably fairly old. I think the average person expects that the sofa will get softer over time, and so measuring the ‘softness’ of something should be done on a near identical sofa in a near identical condition - meaning in this case new. If I tried a pair of Doc Martens in their store that was a display model (and thus tried on by lots of people) the leather will be softened by wear, but when I get home my Docs cause blisters - they missold me, right? Well no - the shoes there were demo shoes and a reasonable expectation would be that the new shoes would be stiffer than the worn shoes. 

If they said the sofa was going to be as soft as this sofa right now then I agree that it’s missold. But if they say it’s the exact same sofa made from the exact same materials then, even if that response was in answering the question ‘will the new sofa be as soft this sofa here’, they didn’t say anything other than facts. Didn’t say it would be or wouldn’t be. If they did say it would be as soft as that sofa right out of the box, then yes it was missold but I’m guessing it wasn’t recorded and is a he said she said situation from a conversation from months ago. 

I also agree that soft, stiff, hard, flexible etc are all subjective terms, and so the argument of this isn’t soft won’t have much weight I don’t think. 

In any measure, if you’ve sent a LBA, and they’ve sent you their response then they’re done engaging with you as they feel you’ve rejected all other offers now. The next step is to take it court and let a judge decide how it goes. From what you’ve said, it seems like a LBA was used as a negotiation tactic. Unfortunately I think it was maybe too early, and you’ve shut the conversation down now, so got to take it to court (or whatever action you said you were going to take) and prepare for that. 

Hi, we stated in the sales talk that we wanted a sofa exactly like the one we were sitting on. We talked about my spine problems. At no point were we told we would have to bed it in. We haven't bought a sofa in 20years and although , yes it may soften with use, we were clearly expecting that level of comfort from day 1, and the sale was based on this. What DFS seem to be doing is treating me like an average person, who just needs to get on with it, and sit on it till its soft.  I only managed a couple of hours on it the first day it was delivered, and consequently my back was worse for a day afterwards. Nowhere in the order paperwork does it state that it will need bedding in. Also the model could have been new in the shop, who is to say it was old. It was cream and the stains may have been caused by careless customers trying it out, or children playing on it. The point is that DFS at no point told us we would not receive an identical sofa.  They have breached our rights by refusing our right to refuse. We cannot be expected to know every possible detail about new sofas unless they , the experts,  tell us. We have been trying every way to resolve this since March and I do not think we have used the LPA too soon, or that it was a game tactic. I just want this sorting out as I feel that we have been ignored. I have posted to this forum for help on this matter to see if it can be resolved without going to court, or if there is something I am unaware about. Thank you for all your help and advice.

The thing is that an LBA is a letter before action - not a letter before seeing if we can resolve it without going to court. And that's what people are saying to you now. By sending the LBA you've effectively told DFS you don't want to negotiate any more and they either pay up or go to court. 

If DFS don't want to play any more then I think all you can do is get your ducks in a row and take the case to a court. Make sure you provide as much evidence as possible about the differences between the display model and the one you received. 

I don't think it's a guaranteed win for you by any means but if DFS get a court summons they may well come back to the table. 

Okell

PHK said:

... I agree with the poster above who suggested the sale shouldn't have been made. Most furniture shops do not sell furniture for those with specific medical requirements. There are speciist suppliers who will make sure the furniture is both supportive and comfortable.  (It's support that's important not softness)...

soolin said:

... Lastly if you do manage to get these taken back, or replace them anyway, then look at one of the specialist companies that deal with medical needs. It certainly won’t be cheap but often they can make something with a lot more choice as to size and softness, my MIL had a chair made for her to her exact specs. 

Yes.  I'm afraid that if the OP has particular requirements because of their medical condition then they really do need to be looking at a specialist supplier who can fulfil those requirements.

As far as DFS are concerned that sofa might be the "softest" one they do and the salesman might reasonably - but wrongly - have thought it would meet the OP's needs. 

Perhaps DFS should not have sold it to them, but it comes down to how clear and insistent the OP was in making it 100% clear what was required.  Perhaps "softness" or "firmness" can be measured objectively by an indentometer, but that doesn't mean that every person will have the same subjective judgment as to what is soft and what is firm.  One person's "too firm" might be "just right" or even a "bit soft" for someone else.

I'm fortunate in that I don't suffer from a degenerative disc disease like the OP, but I have suffered from episodes of severe back pain for over 40 years and also suffer from ankylosing spondylitis.  Every time I go into a furniture shop I check out the suites because ours is 25 years old*.  Every one I've tried in the last ten years has been way too soft and gives no support at all.  Once I've sat down in one I feel trapped and have to fight my way out.  If the OP can't find a standard sofa in a high street shop that's soft enough, then I suspect sofas that soft aren't made for standard retail and they need to go to a specialist supplier.

Depending on exactly what the OP told the DFS salesman and exactly what the salesman responded the OP might have a claim under s10 CRA.  They probably have a better chance with s14 but even then I'm not sure.


*If the OP's current old sofas are sufficiently soft, she should consider having them recovered and having any necessary repairs made to them.  That's what we're doing with our current 3 piece suite as it's significantly cheaper than buying a new suite that wouldn't be as comfortable or as well liked as what we've got.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

PHK said:

... I agree with the poster above who suggested the sale shouldn't have been made. Most furniture shops do not sell furniture for those with specific medical requirements. There are speciist suppliers who will make sure the furniture is both supportive and comfortable.  (It's support that's important not softness)...

soolin said:

... Lastly if you do manage to get these taken back, or replace them anyway, then look at one of the specialist companies that deal with medical needs. It certainly won’t be cheap but often they can make something with a lot more choice as to size and softness, my MIL had a chair made for her to her exact specs. 

Perhaps DFS should not have sold it to them, but it comes down to how clear and insistent the OP was in making it 100% clear what was required.  

You have wonder, on the balance of probability, whether someone with degenerative disc disease would mention such a thing which buying something such as a sofa. 

I'd image they would, of course who knows if a court would suggest the same but yes Section 14 is OP's best bet. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

PHK said:

... I agree with the poster above who suggested the sale shouldn't have been made. Most furniture shops do not sell furniture for those with specific medical requirements. There are speciist suppliers who will make sure the furniture is both supportive and comfortable.  (It's support that's important not softness)...

soolin said:

... Lastly if you do manage to get these taken back, or replace them anyway, then look at one of the specialist companies that deal with medical needs. It certainly won’t be cheap but often they can make something with a lot more choice as to size and softness, my MIL had a chair made for her to her exact specs. 

Perhaps DFS should not have sold it to them, but it comes down to how clear and insistent the OP was in making it 100% clear what was required.  

You have wonder, on the balance of probability, whether someone with degenerative disc disease would mention such a thing which buying something such as a sofa. 

I'd image they would, of course who knows if a court would suggest the same but yes Section 14 is OP's best bet. 

I don't know what obligation that places on the seller though. 'I have a medical condition will this product suit it?' is really a rather specialist question and unless the seller has said 'yes it sure will, sign here' then there's a big old grey area of 'well try this soft one, what do you think? would that suit you? it's very soft yes. Do you want it? Sign here.'

I think I would agree Section 14 is the part to push against - if they would have been happy with a sofa as soft as the display model then they should get a sofa as soft as the display model. 

On the other hand I offer to come and sit myself down on the OP's sofa for a while and break it in. At the rate I seem to destroy sofas the 6 months should come down to about 2 days. Sadly it will probably shorten the lifespan to about 8 months.  

Redfairy

Thank you all for your comments. DFS have only replied once in writing to all our many letters,  after 5months of chasing it up. They do not return calls and the CEO has had copies of all our correspondence and complaints.  Even the complaints department didn't reply. The only correspondence we had was to say that the inspection had found no manufacturing defects and therefore the case was closed. We had numerous replies from the credit company to say they had spoken to DFS and we were not entitled to a refund, even though we do not know what was said as we had no contact from DFS. The furniture ombudsman were told by DFS that the sofa had no defects. They all seemed to have ignored the fact that we tried to exercise our right to reject a few days after the sofas were delivered as they were not the same as the models in the shop. We were told verbally by the salesman that we would be very happy with them as they ticked all our requirements.  Unfortunately this cant be proven.  DFS have never denied that they omitted to tell us about the bedding in period and the sofas would initially be firmer. We would have asked lots of questions if told this and most probably would not have bought them. The problem isn't just allowing time to bed them in, its the fact they caused me pain after using them. Why would they think I would  buy a sofa that I cant physically use. In my personal experience of the sofas one was very comfy and supported my back, the other causes me pain to sit on. Its very frustrating.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

PHK said:

... I agree with the poster above who suggested the sale shouldn't have been made. Most furniture shops do not sell furniture for those with specific medical requirements. There are speciist suppliers who will make sure the furniture is both supportive and comfortable.  (It's support that's important not softness)...

soolin said:

... Lastly if you do manage to get these taken back, or replace them anyway, then look at one of the specialist companies that deal with medical needs. It certainly won’t be cheap but often they can make something with a lot more choice as to size and softness, my MIL had a chair made for her to her exact specs. 

Perhaps DFS should not have sold it to them, but it comes down to how clear and insistent the OP was in making it 100% clear what was required.  

You have wonder, on the balance of probability, whether someone with degenerative disc disease would mention such a thing which buying something such as a sofa. 

I'd image they would, of course who knows if a court would suggest the same but yes Section 14 is OP's best bet. 

I don't know what obligation that places on the seller though. 'I have a medical condition will this product suit it?' is really a rather specialist question and unless the seller has said 'yes it sure will, sign here' then there's a big old grey area of 'well try this soft one, what do you think? would that suit you? it's very soft yes. Do you want it? Sign here.'

I think I would agree Section 14 is the part to push against - if they would have been happy with a sofa as soft as the display model then they should get a sofa as soft as the display model. 

On the other hand I offer to come and sit myself down on the OP's sofa for a while and break it in. At the rate I seem to destroy sofas the 6 months should come down to about 2 days. Sadly it will probably shorten the lifespan to about 8 months.  

As it says express or implied then ultimately the trader should decline a sale if they aren't sure.

The only question, in my view, issues for the OP is can they show they told DFS they had a medical condition and if they can't (because it was verbal) would a court believe they did (or will DFS fold before any find the answer to question 2). 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

PHK said:

... I agree with the poster above who suggested the sale shouldn't have been made. Most furniture shops do not sell furniture for those with specific medical requirements. There are speciist suppliers who will make sure the furniture is both supportive and comfortable.  (It's support that's important not softness)...

soolin said:

... Lastly if you do manage to get these taken back, or replace them anyway, then look at one of the specialist companies that deal with medical needs. It certainly won’t be cheap but often they can make something with a lot more choice as to size and softness, my MIL had a chair made for her to her exact specs. 

Perhaps DFS should not have sold it to them, but it comes down to how clear and insistent the OP was in making it 100% clear what was required.  

You have wonder, on the balance of probability, whether someone with degenerative disc disease would mention such a thing which buying something such as a sofa. 

I'd image they would, of course who knows if a court would suggest the same but yes Section 14 is OP's best bet. 

I don't know what obligation that places on the seller though. 'I have a medical condition will this product suit it?' is really a rather specialist question and unless the seller has said 'yes it sure will, sign here' then there's a big old grey area of 'well try this soft one, what do you think? would that suit you? it's very soft yes. Do you want it? Sign here.'

I think I would agree Section 14 is the part to push against - if they would have been happy with a sofa as soft as the display model then they should get a sofa as soft as the display model. 

On the other hand I offer to come and sit myself down on the OP's sofa for a while and break it in. At the rate I seem to destroy sofas the 6 months should come down to about 2 days. Sadly it will probably shorten the lifespan to about 8 months.  

As it says express or implied then ultimately the trader should decline a sale if they aren't sure.

The only question, in my view, issues for the OP is can they show they told DFS they had a medical condition and if they can't (because it was verbal) would a court believe they did (or will DFS fold before any find the answer to question 2). 

I'm not 100% sure on the legal position but as a trader I had more than one occasion where people have told me 'i have X and need Y - will this work' and my response was always 'this is the most Y thing we have, but I can't vouch for it meeting your needs. you decide.' of course the difference in that case was they could go home with the same product they tried and not another one made to order 8 weeks later. 

From my perspective you can't really expect a DFS sofa salesman to know what your specific needs are but they can point you towards what products they have and advise you to some extent. In the end though, the end decision is yours from trying the product. 

If so, the only real question is whether the sofa supplied is sufficiently close to the one delivered. 

I feel in this case because the OP made such a point of stressing softness then they probably should have been made aware of this bedding in period. And I don't think you can just claim the buyer should have known. 

On the other hand as you say, how much of this can be evidenced? 

soolin

Redfairy said:

Thank you all for your comments. DFS have only replied once in writing to all our many letters,  after 5months of chasing it up. They do not return calls and the CEO has had copies of all our correspondence and complaints.  Even the complaints department didn't reply. The only correspondence we had was to say that the inspection had found no manufacturing defects and therefore the case was closed. We had numerous replies from the credit company to say they had spoken to DFS and we were not entitled to a refund, even though we do not know what was said as we had no contact from DFS. The furniture ombudsman were told by DFS that the sofa had no defects. They all seemed to have ignored the fact that we tried to exercise our right to reject a few days after the sofas were delivered as they were not the same as the models in the shop. We were told verbally by the salesman that we would be very happy with them as they ticked all our requirements.  Unfortunately this cant be proven.  DFS have never denied that they omitted to tell us about the bedding in period and the sofas would initially be firmer. We would have asked lots of questions if told this and most probably would not have bought them. The problem isn't just allowing time to bed them in, its the fact they caused me pain after using them. Why would they think I would  buy a sofa that I cant physically use. In my personal experience of the sofas one was very comfy and supported my back, the other causes me pain to sit on. Its very frustrating.  

This is obviously very distressing for you and you might be at the stage now of spending a few hours making a final decision about how to proceed, rather than to spend more days and weeks causing your mental health to suffer. 

Perhaps take today to read back though this thread and make a final decision, either keep them and try and resolve the problems by finding a company that can perhaps replace the seats with something softer or look into court costs. The LBA rather stopped any further discussion with DFS , whatever you do you will need to ultimately either accept or go to court now.

Last year we bought a new sofa , we only replaced one , we couldn’t afford to replace both so we are now mix and matching. I have back issues, my husband has a disc and spinal issue and we needed a very firm sofa. We choose one from Parker Knoll but when it arrived one seat was too soft. We called them under their guarantee and they came and measured the softness , they said that one seat was softer than the show room model and after bedding in would become softer and agreed this was not in line with what we had tried in the showroom. Surprisingly they were able to replace an entire cushion stuffing, they came , took the sofa apart, replaced the innards of the sofa in the soft area, put sofa back together again without a mark on it. The point of this was that the innards can be replaced even though the sofa doesn’t have loose cushions. Having issued the LBA I can’t see DFS coming back to negotiations now but perhaps a third party company might be able to help?