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

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

It really doesn't matter whether OP wants to use the feet issue as an excuse to get out of having a sofa they don't like, the only thing that matters is whether the they have the short term right to reject or not. 

OP don't over complicate things and stick to rejecting because the goods are not as described  

cr1mson

In what way is the sofa not as described? For example if they described it as a brown sofa of x dimensions at that is what you got even if the feet are different colours then you got what was described. Or did it describe it as X model and you have a picture of X model complete with feet that differ from what you got then you could argue that it is not as described.

powerful_Rogue

eskbanker said:

powerful_Rogue said:
Make sure your argument is correct though, as pointed out by my bold above. You can't just quote parts that don't apply.

I was going to say the same thing but then realised that OP presumably means any one of the bullet point list, rather than suggesting that all apply here, i.e. they're linked with 'or' rather than 'and'!

True, but best to keep it concise rather then mentioning parts that don't apply.

I can't see DFS accepting this and it being a case of letter befoer action and then small claims court - so to the point is better.

Okell

As far as I can see the CRA allows a consumer to reject goods within 30 days for a full refund for various reasons including "not as described".  What the consumer's motive may or may not be is irrelevant.

If the consumer goes to the trouble of specifically ordering a particular style or colour of sofa feet and that isn't what is delivered, that sounds to me like it isn't what was ordered (or described in the order process).

While a judge might well decide that this was a minor fault that didn't justify rejection, I'd far rather hope that they'd take the view that if a consumer has ordered a specific item or combination of items, then the onus is on the trader to deliver precisely that item or combination of items.  If they can't do something as a simple as that, well...

powerful_Rogue

Okell said:

As far as I can see the CRA allows a consumer to reject goods within 30 days for a full refund for various reasons including "not as described".  What the consumer's motive may or may not be is irrelevant.

If the consumer goes to the trouble of specifically ordering a particular style or colour of sofa feet and that isn't what is delivered, that sounds to me like it isn't what was ordered (or described in the order process).

While a judge might well decide that this was a minor fault that didn't justify rejection, I'd far rather hope that they'd take the view that if a consumer has ordered a specific item or combination of items, then the onus is on the trader to deliver precisely that item or combination of items.  If they can't do something as a simple as that, well...

I'd also like to think they would consider DFS apologising from the wrong feet being delivered and the offer of the correct ones being sent out.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

Okell said:

As far as I can see the CRA allows a consumer to reject goods within 30 days for a full refund for various reasons including "not as described".  What the consumer's motive may or may not be is irrelevant.

If the consumer goes to the trouble of specifically ordering a particular style or colour of sofa feet and that isn't what is delivered, that sounds to me like it isn't what was ordered (or described in the order process).

While a judge might well decide that this was a minor fault that didn't justify rejection, I'd far rather hope that they'd take the view that if a consumer has ordered a specific item or combination of items, then the onus is on the trader to deliver precisely that item or combination of items.  If they can't do something as a simple as that, well...

I'd also like to think they would consider DFS apologising from the wrong feet being delivered and the offer of the correct ones being sent out.

Perhaps but on that basis what is the point of the short term right to reject?

If the short term right didn’t exist, DFS have to make the goods conform anyway, it’s not like they doing OP a favour, they are merely offering to correct their breach of contract.

I do agree it may be some what disproportionate to reject a sofa due to the feet but as that is a right you’d think a sofa retailer would do a blooming good job of not making silly mistakes right? 

Lipgloss24

eskbanker said:

powerful_Rogue said:
Make sure your argument is correct though, as pointed out by my bold above. You can't just quote parts that don't apply.

I was going to say the same thing but then realised that OP presumably means any one of the bullet point list, rather than suggesting that all apply here, i.e. they're linked with 'or' rather than 'and'!

Yes exactly . Mine would be it doesn’t fit the description therefore im within my rights to reject 

Aylesbury_Duck

Lipgloss24 said:

Phoenix72 said:

Bearing in mind there is usually a choice of legs then is it an intrinsic compenent. I had a new sofa delivered the other day....no feet when they brought it into house but guy nipped out to van and put on in 2 minutes.

You are looking for any reason to reject as you no longer like the sofa.

Phoenix72 said:

Bearing in mind there is usually a choice of legs then is it an intrinsic compenent. I had a new sofa delivered the other day....no feet when they brought it into house but guy nipped out to van and put on in 2 minutes.

You are looking for any reason to reject as you no longer like the sofa.

I’m not looking for any reason to reject the sofa I agreed to grey sofa dark feet . They have  give me the feet I didn’t agree to  therefore under the consumer act right 2015 if items are deliverd that are 
* not fit for purpose 
* not as described 
* satisfactory quality 
* last a reasonable length of time  u can reject within 30 days . Simply because the issue is considered minor, does not change this. The consumer rights act does not distinguish between major and minor faults . Dfs have made a error 

Then keep pushing and if you don't get anywhere, speak to your card/finance provider.  If they won't help, take DfS to court and hope that the court agrees with your interpretationof the act.

All that will take time (court waiting times appear to be several months), so you'll need to factor that into your decision.

Lipgloss24

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Okell said:

As far as I can see the CRA allows a consumer to reject goods within 30 days for a full refund for various reasons including "not as described".  What the consumer's motive may or may not be is irrelevant.

If the consumer goes to the trouble of specifically ordering a particular style or colour of sofa feet and that isn't what is delivered, that sounds to me like it isn't what was ordered (or described in the order process).

While a judge might well decide that this was a minor fault that didn't justify rejection, I'd far rather hope that they'd take the view that if a consumer has ordered a specific item or combination of items, then the onus is on the trader to deliver precisely that item or combination of items.  If they can't do something as a simple as that, well...

I'd also like to think they would consider DFS apologising from the wrong feet being delivered and the offer of the correct ones being sent out.

Perhaps but on that basis what is the point of the short term right to reject?

If the short term right didn’t exist, DFS have to make the goods conform anyway, it’s not like they doing OP a favour, they are merely offering to correct their breach of contract.

I do agree it may be some what disproportionate to reject a sofa due to the feet but as that is a right you’d think a sofa retailer would do a blooming good job of not making silly mistakes right? 

Thanks you seem to talk some sense 

Aylesbury_Duck

Lipgloss24 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Okell said:

As far as I can see the CRA allows a consumer to reject goods within 30 days for a full refund for various reasons including "not as described".  What the consumer's motive may or may not be is irrelevant.

If the consumer goes to the trouble of specifically ordering a particular style or colour of sofa feet and that isn't what is delivered, that sounds to me like it isn't what was ordered (or described in the order process).

While a judge might well decide that this was a minor fault that didn't justify rejection, I'd far rather hope that they'd take the view that if a consumer has ordered a specific item or combination of items, then the onus is on the trader to deliver precisely that item or combination of items.  If they can't do something as a simple as that, well...

I'd also like to think they would consider DFS apologising from the wrong feet being delivered and the offer of the correct ones being sent out.

Perhaps but on that basis what is the point of the short term right to reject?

If the short term right didn’t exist, DFS have to make the goods conform anyway, it’s not like they doing OP a favour, they are merely offering to correct their breach of contract.

I do agree it may be some what disproportionate to reject a sofa due to the feet but as that is a right you’d think a sofa retailer would do a blooming good job of not making silly mistakes right? 

Thanks you seem to talk some sense 

Most people have talked sense, the problem is that you've decided you have a right to reject (and I think you have) and DfS disagree.  People have suggested that pragmatically, you're probably better off accepting the feet switch and that the hardness/height concern will disappear over time.  The alternative is involving a credit provider or court action, either of which will take time, don't guarantee the outcome you want and you'll have to keep and protect the sofa while all that plays out.  And then have a waiting time between ordering a replacement and it being delivered.

I suggest that the advice to accept the switch is actually more sensible than telling you what you already know: That you seem to have the right to reject the sofa but there's a chance you can't enforce it.