Faulty Wool Carpet

MrsSGJ

Hi, we bought what we thought was a good quality wool carpet from Tapi.  As it is wool we were aware that the level of shedding would be more than a man made fabric however it did seem to be excessive.  The carpet also started to develop lines in it.  We had the fitter back as he hadn't fitted a stair correctly and he agreed that it wasn't as it should be.  An independent assessor came and submitted a report to the manufacturer who also agreed that the carpet is faulty.

They had agreed to either replace the carpet or allow us to keep it but at a reduced cost.  The rub being that we fitted the carpet as part of renovation and the 3 bedrooms being of a size that needed new furniture to be erected in situ and there is no way that it can be moved to replace the carpet without disassembling and reassembling.  

As such we asked if we could have the stairs and landing replaced and keep the bedroom carpets but at a reduced price (we certainly don't expect them for free).  Tapi have gone back to their buying department who seem to be the ones that are either negotiating with the manufacturer or are the ones trying to call the shots.  I've today been advised that the company will only replace the carpet and will not agree to a hybrid, they will also not pay for someone to come and take the furniture apart and then reassemble.

What are our rights please?

tacpot12

I don't think you have any rights to demand a hybrid resolution, however I'm not a lawyer. Personally I would go with the refund for the whole lot. 

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, you can call the legal helpline who will confirm if you have any rights to a hybrid solution. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

This is sort of covered by:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/21

(1)If the consumer has any of the rights mentioned in section 20(1) to (3), but does not reject all of the goods and treat the contract as at an end, the consumer—

(a)may reject some or all of the goods that do not conform to the contract, but

(b)may not reject any goods that do conform to the contract.

So you could reject some of the carpet but not all, however the regs don't (directly) state that you can instead seek a price reduction on those you don't reject.

Also a price reduction as a right comes after a filed repair replacement (for various reason) so I'm not sure you would have the right to what you've requested (replace some, price reduction on the rest). 

Regarding the furniture, I guess you don't have to move it and then the carpet shop would have a fail replacement attempt if they also couldn't move it which would then leave you to a price reduction but they might then refuse to replace the bits you want replacing. 

Is there a reason you can't  take the furniture apart (you don't have to answer it's just a question that might be asked if you paid someone to do it and wanted to recover that cost as damages )

You'd hope a big company would extend some goodwill, there is an email contact on the "ceo email" website for Tapi if you wanted to try escalating the matter to a higher level of CS (often such mailboxes are monitored with an executive customer facing team to reply, but not always). 

ArbitraryRandom

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Is there a reason you can't  take the furniture apart (you don't have to answer it's just a question that might be asked if you paid someone to do it and wanted to recover that cost as damages )

Would that come under the consumer's responsibility to 'make the goods available for collection'? 

I'm specifically wondering if the sales contract included anything about the customer needing to have the space clear for installation - and if it would translate to also needing it to be clear for removal.  

But, for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation - there is no specific provision for a consumer rejecting all of the goods but wanting two different remedies for different parts of the contract. 

RefluentBeans

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Is there a reason you can't  take the furniture apart (you don't have to answer it's just a question that might be asked if you paid someone to do it and wanted to recover that cost as damages )

Would that come under the consumer's responsibility to 'make the goods available for collection'? 

I'm specifically wondering if the sales contract included anything about the customer needing to have the space clear for installation - and if it would translate to also needing it to be clear for removal.  

But, for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation - there is no specific provision for a consumer rejecting all of the goods but wanting two different remedies for different parts of the contract. 

It would definitely fall under the consumer’s responsibility to make the goods available for collection. I would also think it would be bad faith to try and get a repair without moving stuff out of the way and then claiming it was a ‘failed repair’. 

Tapi (as with most carpet providers) say the space needs to be basically clear of furniture. 

I agree with everything else - consumers can’t force a hybrid, but can reject part of the fitting. Also can’t force Tapi to take the furniture apart. Can check home insurance and see if this is covered there. Surprised me sometimes what’s actually included there. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Is there a reason you can't  take the furniture apart (you don't have to answer it's just a question that might be asked if you paid someone to do it and wanted to recover that cost as damages )

Would that come under the consumer's responsibility to 'make the goods available for collection'? 

I'm specifically wondering if the sales contract included anything about the customer needing to have the space clear for installation - and if it would translate to also needing it to be clear for removal.  

But, for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation - there is no specific provision for a consumer rejecting all of the goods but wanting two different remedies for different parts of the contract. 

If the trader is providing a replacement the CRA stipulates the trader must bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so.

Also the ordinary position of contract law is that where there is a breach of contract (in this case the goods not conforming) the party suffering the breach should be in the position they would have been had that breach not occurred. 

With those two things said there is always the obligation to mitigate losses.

If you have Ikea furniture then it may very well be reasonable to expect it to be disassembled by the homeowner whereas if you have custom made furniture that has been built in the room with joints beyond a basic screw that isn't designed to be easily taken apart it may be reasonable to pay to have that done.

I also mentioned OP didn't have to answer and that was referring to them being physically unable to do so for personal reasons, such as a disability, that they may not wish to discuss on a forum. 

If OP is referring to something like built-in wardrobes then a compromise may be to have the new carpet fitted up to the wardrobe, if it can be finished well, and leave the old carpet inside/under the the fitted wardrobes as the shedding may perhaps not be much of an issue in an area such as that. 

In terms of the goods being collected, the obligation is placed on the trader (unless the consumer has agreed to return them) but often the trader is using a third party, if you look at the recent thread with the poly tunnel, the trader could say, "look I know it took ages to put up but I'm very familiar with the goods and the two of us could have this down in a third of the time" and that might be reasonable. Just because the trader wants to pay a third party (courier) who would only spend 30 seconds at the property to pick up a box that shouldn't be the consumer's problem.

Similar here, if OP rejects the carpets Tapi are presumably going to pay a carpet fitter (to lift the carpet) whose job isn't to move furniture but again it's the trader's obligation to collect the goods, the fact they don't wish to attend to collect the goods in order to save costs shouldn't be the consumer's burden. 

I don't think people should be unreasonable but that works both ways and so equally I don't think people should have to bend over backwards because the trader opts to use a third party that is perhaps insufficient in achieving a balanced and reasonable solution. 

born_again

In reality is there any need to remove the now built in furniture?
Can simply lay the new carpet up to the edge. Clearly the carpet inside is not going to be a issue.