We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
DFS .. trying to get a refund over sending me the wrong colour feet
Options
Comments
-
Aylesbury_Duck said: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.
* 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
All that will take time (court waiting times appear to be several months), so you'll need to factor that into your decision.0 -
Lipgloss24 said:Aylesbury_Duck said: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.
* 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
All that will take time (court waiting times appear to be several months), so you'll need to factor that into your decision.1 -
Lipgloss24 said:Aylesbury_Duck said: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.
* 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
All that will take time (court waiting times appear to be several months), so you'll need to factor that into your decision.
0 -
Aylesbury_Duck said:Lipgloss24 said:Aylesbury_Duck said: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.
* 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
All that will take time (court waiting times appear to be several months), so you'll need to factor that into your decision.0 -
Aylesbury_Duck said:Lipgloss24 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.
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?
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.
0 -
Lots of speculation here about what DFS's description of the sofa might have said.
We don't know which the OP chose but DFS have dozens of sofas with options, including choice of feet.
Their descriptions of such sofas all say the same thingAvailable in Light and Dark feet at no extra cost.
and again further down the page,
Feet Options
Available in Light and Dark feet at no extra cost.
Here is one example of many: https://www.dfs.co.uk/belair/blr13acwp
Well, the OP's sofa has light and dark feet. DFS have said they will change them at no extra cost.
I can't see any case for saying this does not conform to contract?
2 -
Lipgloss24 said:Aylesbury_Duck said:Lipgloss24 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.
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?
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.3 -
I can’t offer any view on what a court might decide in a case like this but there is a risk that they could take a dim view of bringing a case over a trivial matter which could be very easily rectified. The fact the OP has buyer’s remorse is not relevant to the case - all that matters is that the sofa has the wrong feet. Would a judge consider the rejection of the sofa and bringing a court case to do so to be a reasonable course of action for such a trivial issue?
Of course, the alternative is that the costs of DFS defending the case might be more than the cost of the sofa so they could fold before it even gets to court. No guarantees though.Northern Ireland club member No 382 :j5 -
Aylesbury_Duck said:Lipgloss24 said:Aylesbury_Duck said:Lipgloss24 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.
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?
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.
i mean from the comments on the group what everyone is saying about the issues they and people they know have had with the company .
0 -
Money_Grabber13579 said:I can’t offer any view on what a court might decide in a case like this but there is a risk that they could take a dim view of bringing a case over a trivial matter which could be very easily rectified. The fact the OP has buyer’s remorse is not relevant to the case - all that matters is that the sofa has the wrong feet. Would a judge consider the rejection of the sofa and bringing a court case to do so to be a reasonable course of action for such a trivial issue?
Of course, the alternative is that the costs of DFS defending the case might be more than the cost of the sofa so they could fold before it even gets to court. No guarantees though.3
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards