DFS .. trying to get a refund over sending me the wrong colour feet

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

The issue is wood is a natural product. It will have some variance in colour,

I think it's more likely the stain is a different batch (or possible they wrong colour, the "dark" looks closer to walnut, in the picture at least).

There's obviously a degree to what is acceptable in variation, I don't think I've ever looked at the legs on our sofa but then it only cost £400, if I had paid £2100 I might take more notice.

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought DFS were the Sports Direct of the sofa world, i.e not famed for their goodwill generosity? 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought DFS were the Sports Direct of the sofa world, i.e not famed for their goodwill generosity?  

Doesn’t matter if they are known for their good or poor customer service (but if poor, why choose to buy from them in the first place?) but they have a valid claim that the product isn’t faulty as the legs just have, potentially, natural variance in colour. By offering to replace the feet, for free, doesn’t mean the product is faulty. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

There's obviously a degree to what is acceptable in variation, I don't think I've ever looked at the legs on our sofa but then it only cost £400, if I had paid £2100 I might take more notice.

I agree - but the OP appears to have attempted to reject for multiple other reasons. Whilst this isn’t a bad thing, and doesn’t legally take away from the legal requirement for the products to be matching the description. The issue is whether there is a fault at all. If the description is just what it says on the website, then it does look like the OP has got what is described - a sofa with dark feet. The light colour is much, much lighter. 

If this is a batch to batch variance, the. There may a valid claim. But I think this is going to require a third party to examine it. 

Comparing two types of colour (say reds: crimson red and maroon) you may say they are different. But when you compare bubblegum pink to red, you are more likely to say the crimson red and maroon are the same colour. In DFS’s case - all they have to say is that none of the feet are ‘light oak’ which is what the OP is saying, and I think that’s actually fairly simple and easy. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought DFS were the Sports Direct of the sofa world, i.e not famed for their goodwill generosity?  

Doesn’t matter if they are known for their good or poor customer service 

I agree I'm just pointing out if this was Harrods yeah they probably go that extra mile to see the customer is satisfied where as I personally find that less likely here.

Ultimately I would go back to page 5 

"DFS have contacted us to advise that the issue relates to the incorrect feet being delivered. As this is a cosmetic issue that can easily be rectified by providing the correct feet.... " 

Reads as an admission of something being wrong. 

I fully agree OP's various reasons for wanting to reject highlights they don't want the sofa but the same can be said the other way around, DFS have come up with various different reasons (solely relating to the feet) as to why OP can't reject because they don't want to refund!

Ultimately as with all these things the party that can articulate themselves most coherently is more likely win.

The goods are required to match the description.
Match a model seen.
Be of satisfactory quality. 
DFS writing repair on the replacement feet doesn't help their case nor does not fitting them because they were the wrong colour and going for another set of legs. 

I think OP is in a stronger position than weaker, mainly because DFS didn't just turn around and say "natural variation, there's nothing we can do" to begin with. 

Of course that's my opinion and I'd just hope whoever at the FOS looks at it thinks the colour difference isn't acceptance either  

saajan_12

The definition of which feet are dark or light seems like a red herring.. the point is the colour comes from a stain or something controllable and the difference between 4 of the legs and the other 8 legs is more than natural variation in the underlying wood. The similarity between the 8 indicates they do generally have a consistent product of the correct item was supplied. So regardless of whether the 8 or the 4 are the intended ones, they are mismatched to eachother which makes them wrong. 

If the legs are wrong then the argumetn is the store don't have to be given the chance to rectify and OP can reject?

I would warn there's a chance a judge says this is de minimis and OP loses out further. 

eskbanker

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ultimately I would go back to page 5 

"DFS have contacted us to advise that the issue relates to the incorrect feet being delivered. As this is a cosmetic issue that can easily be rectified by providing the correct feet.... " 

Reads as an admission of something being wrong. 

I haven't trawled back through the entire thread and can't recall if or when DFS have inspected the sofa, but isn't it possible that DFS were effectively saying that the issue was reported as the incorrect feet being delivered, i.e. OP had said to them that the sofa had come with 'light' feet when 'dark' were ordered, and they'd taken that at face value, subsequently delivering more feet that were their idea of dark but OP considers to be light?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ultimately I would go back to page 5 

"DFS have contacted us to advise that the issue relates to the incorrect feet being delivered. As this is a cosmetic issue that can easily be rectified by providing the correct feet.... " 

Reads as an admission of something being wrong. 

I haven't trawled back through the entire thread and can't recall if or when DFS have inspected the sofa, but isn't it possible that DFS were effectively saying that the issue was reported as the incorrect feet being delivered, i.e. OP had said to them that the sofa had come with 'light' feet when 'dark' were ordered, and they'd taken that at face value, subsequently delivering more feet that were their idea of dark but OP considers to be light?

I don't know?

They seemed too busy giving incorrect information about rights under the CRA to clarify the situation exactly. 

Twice OP was told by V12, if there was a problem with the feet they still wouldn't be able to reject as they aren't part of the sofa which is nonsense. 

This gives rise to another concern not mentioned above, a breach of the CPRs gives the consumer the right to unwind the contract (although this needs to be done within 90 days which I think we are still within).

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/good-practice/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading

They apply to commercial practices relating to products (which includes goods, services and digital content) before, during and after a contract is made.

A 'transactional decision' is a very important concept in the CPRs.

It means any decision taken by the consumer concerning the purchasing of the product or whether to exercise a contractual right in relation to the product, including decisions not to act. This does not only relate to pre-shopping but includes after-sales and continues for the lifetime of the product.

It includes:

decisions such as whether to purchase an item and, if so, by what method - for example, online or from a shop

payment of deposits

obtaining credit

whether to repair a product or scrap it

what remedy to seek for a defective item: rejection, repair, replacement or refund

eskbanker

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

eskbanker said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ultimately I would go back to page 5 

"DFS have contacted us to advise that the issue relates to the incorrect feet being delivered. As this is a cosmetic issue that can easily be rectified by providing the correct feet.... " 

Reads as an admission of something being wrong. 

I haven't trawled back through the entire thread and can't recall if or when DFS have inspected the sofa, but isn't it possible that DFS were effectively saying that the issue was reported as the incorrect feet being delivered, i.e. OP had said to them that the sofa had come with 'light' feet when 'dark' were ordered, and they'd taken that at face value, subsequently delivering more feet that were their idea of dark but OP considers to be light?

I don't know?

They seemed too busy giving incorrect information about rights under the CRA to clarify the situation exactly. 

Twice OP was told by V12, if there was a problem with the feet they still wouldn't be able to reject as they aren't part of the sofa which is nonsense. 

Yes, I'm not disputing the fact that both DFS and V12 have misrepresented OP's rights, but was simply challenging your apparent assertion that the text you quoted signifies any admission of guilt or liability.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:

Yes, I'm not disputing the fact that both DFS and V12 have misrepresented OP's rights, but was simply challenging your apparent assertion that the text you quoted signifies any admission of guilt or liability.

That was coupled with the party that can articulate themselves most coherently I would be using their own words and leave them to come up with whatever reasoning they wish to put forward in return (I assume the finance co are involved with the FOS process in that they can submit some kind of defence?)

sheramber

Would it not have been simpler for DFS to deliver 12 new matching feet rather than keep trying to match what was already delivered.

. They will just order in 3 of the light and as they will be from a different batch  it unlikely they will be the same colour. Think two tins of paint produced in different batches or two rolls of wall paper - same description  but slightly differnt colours . 

eskbanker

sheramber said:

Would it not have been simpler for DFS to deliver 12 new matching feet rather than keep trying to match what was already delivered.

. They will just order in 3 of the light and as they will be from a different batch  it unlikely they will be the same colour. Think two tins of paint produced in different batches or two rolls of wall paper - same description  but slightly differnt colours . 

OP doesn't want DFS to solve the problem by delivering 12 matching feet, whatever colour they may be....!