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

Lipgloss24

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.

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.

Aslong as I rejected it within the 30 day period it doesn’t matter if it takes over 30 days to sort out 

Phoenix72

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.

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.

Aslong as I rejected it within the 30 day period it doesn’t matter if it takes over 30 days to sort out 

I think the point being made is that you are currently in possession of the sofa and if DFS continue their stance and it takes weeks/months to go to court then what are you going to do with the sofa?

Aylesbury_Duck

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.

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.

Aslong as I rejected it within the 30 day period it doesn’t matter if it takes over 30 days to sort out 

Correct, from a legal perspective the clock stops.  I was coming at it from a practical point of view.  Are you prepared to store and protect the sofa while all the legal stuff plays out?  If so, then proceeding with card/finance/court action is your next step.

Lipgloss24

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.

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.

Aslong as I rejected it within the 30 day period it doesn’t matter if it takes over 30 days to sort out 

Correct, from a legal perspective the clock stops.  I was coming at it from a practical point of view.  Are you prepared to store and protect the sofa while all the legal stuff plays out?  If so, then proceeding with card/finance/court action is your next step.

Ahh ok I get you , yes if it comes to this that is what I will have to do 

Lipgloss24

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

I will fight it because I think I’m within my rights . They arnt sticking to there terms & conditions & also going against the law I have seen the complaint group after this people are a lot worse off than me with there sofas and the refuse refunds  they seem to be so bad with customer service 

Alderbank

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 thing

   Available 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?

Aylesbury_Duck

Lipgloss24 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

I will fight it because I think I’m within my rights . They arnt sticking to there terms & conditions & also going against the law I have seen the complaint group after this people are a lot worse off than me with there sofas and the refuse refunds  they seem to be so bad with customer service 

They have a mixed reputation for service, but then they are an out-of-town warehouse flogging cheaply-made sofas in high volumes.  Therefore there are always going to be plenty of unhappy customers alongside many perfectly happy ones you never hear about.  To be honest, I actually think they've given you perfectly good service so far.  They've offered a perfectly reasonable solution to a trivial problem.  Their refusal to accept a return isn't bad customer service, it's a disputed interpretation of the consumer rights act.

Money_Grabber13579

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.

Lipgloss24

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Lipgloss24 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

I will fight it because I think I’m within my rights . They arnt sticking to there terms & conditions & also going against the law I have seen the complaint group after this people are a lot worse off than me with there sofas and the refuse refunds  they seem to be so bad with customer service 

They have a mixed reputation for service, but then they are an out-of-town warehouse flogging cheaply-made sofas in high volumes.  Therefore there are always going to be plenty of unhappy customers alongside many perfectly happy ones you never hear about.  To be honest, I actually think they've given you perfectly good service so far.  They've offered a perfectly reasonable solution to a trivial problem.  Their refusal to accept a return isn't bad customer service, it's a disputed interpretation of the consumer rights act.

I didn’t say bad customer service with me
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 . 

Aylesbury_Duck

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.

I give it no more than a couple of posts before the p word appears.