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

Lipgloss24

I recently posted on here about a sofa I purchased from DFS  and them sending me the wrong colour feet . 

When the sofa came it was too small and because I ordered in store I don’t get the cooling off period BUT they sent me the wrong colour feet therefore under  the consumer act right the item came not as described therefore I am within my short term right to reject within 30 days I have attached a letter I sent to them . 

I have emailed dfs and also the finance company and they are rejecting a refund because the feet is “ cosmetic “ “component “ “aesthetic” .  This is the reply I got off the finance company . 

Any advice please 

Seasalt3

Don't think you've got a leg to stand on.  It's not DFS fault the sofa is too small.  You should have checked the measurements before you bought it.  As for the feet... they've agreed to provide you with the correct ones so they're doing the right thing 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

@born_again

Any thoughts on this from a S75 point of view? OP has the right to reject and receive a refund, i.e there's no obligation to accept a replacement/repair. 

@Lipgloss24 did you get a reply to the top email yet and did you send that to the finance company? 

Seasalt3 said:

Don't think you've got a leg to stand on.  It's not DFS fault the sofa is too small.  You should have checked the measurements before you bought it.  As for the feet... they've agreed to provide you with the correct ones so they're doing the right thing 

Short term right to reject...... 

Lipgloss24

Seasalt3 said:

Don't think you've got a leg to stand on.  It's not DFS fault the sofa is too small.  You should have checked the measurements before you bought it.  As for the feet... they've agreed to provide you with the correct ones so they're doing the right thing 

Yes I know it’s not dfs fault I  chose the arm instead of an open end. They have sent me incorrect feet which under the consumer act it has come “ not as described “ Therefore I’m entitled to a refund, replacement or repair I chose refund 

Lipgloss24

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

@born_again

Any thoughts on this from a S75 point of view? OP has the right to reject and receive a refund, i.e there's no obligation to accept a replacement/repair. 

@Lipgloss24 did you get a reply to the top email yet and did you send that to the finance company? 

Seasalt3 said:

Don't think you've got a leg to stand on.  It's not DFS fault the sofa is too small.  You should have checked the measurements before you bought it.  As for the feet... they've agreed to provide you with the correct ones so they're doing the right thing 

Short term right to reject...... 

yes I sent to both the finance company and tim Stacey . I haven’t heard back off Tim Stacey the finance company came back with they will speak to dfs and then the reply is what they wrote in the email above 

Gavin83

Lipgloss24 said:

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 

What are you going to sit on while this all plays out? Are you still using the sofa now? Trying to present a clearly used sofa for a rejection will make your case a lot weaker.

You can argue with DFS (or anyone else) all you want but they're clearly not planning on backing down. They think they have a case. Your only option might end up being taking them to court and I think you need to seriously consider if this is the route you wish to take. It could go either way but I certainly wouldn't sit here and say you've got a strong case.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Lipgloss24 said:

yes I sent to both the finance company and tim Stacey . 

 the finance company came back with they will speak to dfs and then the reply is what they wrote in the email above 

Sorry just to confirm that's the same message from (or before) the 16th of May? So they just sent the same text again?

Have you asked the finance company to open a S75 claim? 

If so and they won't have you raised a complaint with the finance company? Their official complaints procedure should be detailed somewhere. An official complaint can be taken to the financial ombudsman so might glean a better response.

Gavin83 said:

 They think they have a case.

I would imagine they think the customer will go away if told "no" enough times, if they felt the short term right to reject didn't apply due to the triviality of the matter presumably they would state such. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Gavin83 said:

 They think they have a case.

I would imagine they think the customer will go away if told "no" enough times, if they felt the short term right to reject didn't apply due to the triviality of the matter presumably they would state such. 

They have, in the second screenshot.

Aylesbury_Duck

Looks like the ombudsman or small claims court is your next step.  Be aware that both will perhaps take months, so you're going to need to decide how to put the sofa out of use and protect it until this is resolved.  Continuing to use it will presumably reduce any refund should you be successful.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Gavin83 said:

 They think they have a case.

I would imagine they think the customer will go away if told "no" enough times, if they felt the short term right to reject didn't apply due to the triviality of the matter presumably they would state such. 

They have, in the second screenshot.

They've said it's cosmetic rather than trivial. 

The sofa being bright pink instead blue would also be cosmetic, it isn't a coherent argument.