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

Lipgloss24

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

Basically yes alls I’m getting off dfs is it’s a “component” “aesthetic” they will send me the correct colour . I reported it to finance company and they are saying the same thing . 

I have asked for the details to make a section 75 claim just waiting to hear back 

MeteredOut

Lipgloss24 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

Basically yes alls I’m getting off dfs is it’s a “component” “aesthetic” they will send me the correct colour . I reported it to finance company and they are saying the same thing . 

I have asked for the details to make a section 75 claim just waiting to hear back 

I assume the sofa has been with you but not used for the past 3 weeks? eg, still in the condition it was delivered?

Good luck, but I'm not optimistic of your chances here. Are the correct replacement feet still sitting with DFS?

Aylesbury_Duck

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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.  

I agree, but isn't that a case of semantics?  I'd argue the wrong feet constitutes a cosmetic and trivial matter, whereas the sofa being bright pink would not be trivial.

Lipgloss24

MeteredOut said:

Lipgloss24 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

Basically yes alls I’m getting off dfs is it’s a “component” “aesthetic” they will send me the correct colour . I reported it to finance company and they are saying the same thing . 

I have asked for the details to make a section 75 claim just waiting to hear back 

I assume the sofa has been with you but not used for the past 3 weeks? eg, still in the condition it was delivered?

Good luck, but I'm not optimistic of your chances here. Are the correct replacement feet still sitting with DFS?

Yes the tags still on in the same condition it was when it got deliverd 

yes they told me a delivery date but haven’t turned up 

Okell

Lipgloss24 said:

... When the sofa came it was too small and because I ordered in store I don’t get the cooling off period ...

Eh?  Is that the first time you've mentioned that you bought a sofa that was too small?

That's not what you said on 30 April at 7:11pm after @Phoenix72 had suggested that you were just looking for any reason to reject it

"I’m not looking for any reason to reject the sofa I agreed to grey sofa dark feet..."

(You'd also said it was too high and too hard.  Nothing about too small)

Aylesbury_Duck

Okell said:

Lipgloss24 said:

... When the sofa came it was too small and because I ordered in store I don’t get the cooling off period ...

Eh?  Is that the first time you've mentioned that you bought a sofa that was too small?

That's not what you said on 30 April at 7:11pm after @Phoenix72 had suggested that you were just looking for any reason to reject it

"I’m not looking for any reason to reject the sofa I agreed to grey sofa dark feet..."

(You'd also said it was too high and too hard.  Nothing about too small)

It's been quite a journey.  It started off that the feet were the only reason for wanting to reject it.  Then the sofa was too hard and too high.  Then there was no reason for wanting to reject it other than the colour of the feet.  Now it's too small and OP chose one with an arm rather than an open end.

Maybe DFS isn't the retailer here, and what's being described is a Dimensional Flexing Sofa? 

Alderbank

You do have the short term right to reject under the CRA of because the goods are currently not as described. However DFS will not back down. You would have to take legal action. By the time the notice on your LBA expires you will have received the correct feet. The court will expect you to try to minimise your losses and come to an agreement with the trader before court action, they might well ask for mediation. The mediator will feed back there is no basis for mediation or any court action because you have the goods you ordered in full.

S75 will not succeed because DFS will tell their merchant bank that you have received your goods as described and in full.
The furniture ombudsman might at best award you a small amount of compensation for inconvenience.

I think if you protest that the feet are in a plastic bag, not actually on the sofa, that the DFS store manager might come round to your home, get down on his knees and fit those wretched feet himself.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

You do have the short term right to reject under the CRA of because the goods are currently not as described. However DFS will not back down. You would have to take legal action. By the time the notice on your LBA expires you will have received the correct feet. The court will expect you to try to minimise your losses and come to an agreement with the trader before court action, they might well ask for mediation. The mediator will feed back there is no basis for mediation or any court action because you have the goods you ordered in full.

S75 will not succeed because DFS will tell their merchant bank that you have received your goods as described and in full.
The furniture ombudsman might at best award you a small amount of compensation for inconvenience.

I think if you protest that the feet are in a plastic bag, not actually on the sofa, that the DFS store manager might come round to your home, get down on his knees and fit those wretched feet himself.

DFS can't tell the finance company something that isn't true but I think you might be confusing S75 with a chargeback  

Chargebacks can be contested by the trader but with S75 OP could just not speak to DFS again and issue small claims proceedings against the finance company. Whilst I'm sure the finance company will be grateful for any information DFS provide I can't see a credit provider blindly taking the word of a trader without any scrutiny of whether it's valid given it is them on the hook for the paying court claim.

Whilst there is an obligation to mitigate loses I'm not sure that extends this far otherwise the short term right to reject would be pointless. 

Order a pair of sized 12 shoes, get sent size 10, reject for refund but not have rights because they offer to send the correct size 12, it's just doesn't fall in line with the whole idea of the short term right to reject. 

Okell said:

Lipgloss24 said:

... When the sofa came it was too small and because I ordered in store I don’t get the cooling off period ...

Eh?  Is that the first time you've mentioned that you bought a sofa that was too small?

That's not what you said on 30 April at 7:11pm after @Phoenix72 had suggested that you were just looking for any reason to reject it

"I’m not looking for any reason to reject the sofa I agreed to grey sofa dark feet..."

(You'd also said it was too high and too hard.  Nothing about too small)

The whole change of mind aspect is irrelevant to the situation, other than being good fortune to the OP  

Question is whether when you order a sofa with feet x and get one with feet y can you exercise the short term right to reject. Anything else doesn't matter. 

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree, but isn't that a case of semantics?  I'd argue the wrong feet constitutes a cosmetic and trivial matter, whereas the sofa being bright pink would not be trivial.

I agree the feet are cosmetic but trivial is subjective, if I order a sofa with oak feet to match my oak skirting, oak doors and oak lamps in a room painted blue, getting a sofa with brilliant white feet wouldn't be trivial to me.  

Main point is DFS think the feet don't have to conform to the contract because they are just a "component" which is nonsense, either it's part of the sofa or it's a separate item under the same contract but if it's separate the consumer has the right to reject all goods under the contract which would be both feet and sofa.

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The whole change of mind aspect is irrelevant to the situation, other than being good fortune to the OP  

Question is whether you order a sofa with feet x and get one with feet y can you exercise the short term right to reject. Anything else doesn't matter. 

I agree the wrong coloured feet is good fortune.
If the feet are visible then colour would matter.
I would see as swapping the feet would be classed as a repair that the OP doesn't have to agree to under the STRTR

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Lipgloss24 said:

I have asked for the details to make a section 75 claim just waiting to hear back 

Keep us updated if you can OP, hopefully once you have a S75 open this will be examined closer.

I can't guarantee you have the right to reject due to that EU guidance I mentioned back on page 1 (although I believe as of 2024 UK courts have to form decisions based on UK law but the regs originally come from the EU so the EU take may have strong influence on what the UK decides) and ultimately none of us know how a court will view such an issue but S75 won't cost anything so it's worth you hearing their position on it.