Scs broken spacer board in 2 settees

ftointonn

I’ve had 2 settees,a 3 seater and a loveseat. Arrived in feb 2022 and used daily til December 2022 (then we moved into an extension and that room is only used on odd occasions ) noticed the seats were sagging and thought general wear and tear.

got much worse and saw wood hanging underneath inside the base fabric, Scs say no longer guaranteed it’s older than 12 months. Insurance doesn’t cover as they say it’s Structural !
Scs want £75 to have someone come out inspect it (cos it’s not in guarantee)
we’ve taking the backing fabric of the larger settee to see if we can brace it ourselves and it’s broken in several places!
how can they sell sofa with chipboard expected to brace it and hold 2-3 full grown adults as intended! 

I’ve contacted them by email again showing the damage and telling them about the other sofa. I’ve read any thread about someone in the same situation going through a bodged repair and years arguing with them who want her to take 40% original cost as refund because of depreciation.
not expecting it to last forever on the price we paid but surely 4-5 years isn’t too much to ask 

HillStreetBlues

I agree with you about using chipboard . I would be surprised using that would make it fit for purpose.

Hoenir

ftointonn said:

Scs want £75 to have someone come out inspect it (cos it’s not in guarantee)

Only right that the supplier covers their costs upfront should any claim subsequently found to be false. People unfortunately aren't always truthfull. An inspector will soon determine whether the fault is in the manufacturing or something else, i.e. children jumping and down. 

Alderbank

ftointonn said:

I’ve contacted them by email again showing the damage and telling them about the other sofa. I’ve read any thread about someone in the same situation going through a bodged repair and years arguing with them who want her to take 40% original cost as refund because of depreciation.
not expecting it to last forever on the price we paid but surely 4-5 years isn’t too much to ask 

Move on from ScS's 12 month warranty.

Quite separately from that you have statutory consumer rights. If the sofa has failed due to faulty materials used in manufacture you are entitled, after 2½ years, to a repair or replacement. If they can't repair or replace in a reasonable time you are entitled to a refund.

A refund of 40% after 2½ years (strictly speaking it is because of the length of time you have had use of it rather than depreciation as such) would be about what you are entitled to under the Consumer Rights Act and actually aligns  fairly well with your expected 4-5 years.

PHK

Although, as it’s longer than six months you need to prove that the fault is inherent or latent and. Not due to misuse or abuse. 

You can either pay them the £75 to expect or get an inspection report from a suitably qualified person. 

ThumbRemote

Hoenir said:

ftointonn said:

Scs want £75 to have someone come out inspect it (cos it’s not in guarantee)

An inspector will soon determine whether the fault is in the manufacturing or something else, i.e. children jumping and down. 

You have a lot more faith in the inspector than I do. 

Firstly they are paid by the retailer, so they'll always be biased in favour of the retailer. 

Secondly, they are not a materials scientist, they have no equipment for testing the integrity of the chipboard, they cannot tell whether it's failed due to misuse or normal wear - they'll just guess, leaning towards the retailers side!

HillStreetBlues

ThumbRemote said:

Hoenir said:

ftointonn said:

Scs want £75 to have someone come out inspect it (cos it’s not in guarantee)

An inspector will soon determine whether the fault is in the manufacturing or something else, i.e. children jumping and down. 

You have a lot more faith in the inspector than I do. 

Firstly they are paid by the retailer, so they'll always be biased in favour of the retailer. 

Secondly, they are not a materials scientist, they have no equipment for testing the integrity of the chipboard, they cannot tell whether it's failed due to misuse or normal wear - they'll just guess, leaning towards the retailers side!

I agree. I wouldn't be using their choice.
I expect it's quite easy to find a carpenter to state if using chipboard the way they have done is suitable.

PHK

Just to point out that most furniture uses that sort of board. On its own that’s not enough to say It’s poor quality or design. 

 In fact if it’s made properly, because of the binding it’s normally stronger than wood.  

daveyjp

Just a reflection of the 'quality' of the sofa, but a good case study for DT students on where poor design, poor materials, poor quality control gets you.

There is no reason those parts couldn't be solid timber, but that would add £5 to the cost and £50 once in store,

Bradden

daveyjp said:

Just a reflection of the 'quality' of the sofa, but a good case study for DT students on where poor design, poor materials, poor quality control gets you.

There is no reason those parts couldn't be solid timber, but that would add £5 to the cost and £50 once in store,

Surely the increased cost is the reason why this material is selected. Presumably it does not serve a decorative function and therefore structural integrity under weight bearing is the requirement not whether it's a solid piece if timber.

Alderbank

I am now a retired scientist but I'm quite familiar with how furniture is designed and built, having built quite a bit as an amateur woodworker.
It's not clear to me what the function is of the two shaped pieces of chipboard which are obviously damaged? They are on the reverse of the sofa backrest and appear to run in parallel with solid timber struts.

I wonder whether those solid struts are the load-bearing structures and the chipboard pieces, which were covered by corovon (dipryl) as I would expect, are just to give some curvilinear shape to the back of the sofa?

If so the damage could have been caused by for example pushing the sofa hard against a wall or another piece of furniture such as a sideboard, which might be considered user damage. If would then be a moot (but relevant) point whether they were not sufficiently durable for their purpose or whether the furniture was being used outside its intended parameters.

I'd like to see a more wide-angle picture showing the whole of the sofa before giving any verdict.