Natuzzi Faulty Sofa

LovePorkPies

We took delivery of two very expensive reclining sofas from Natuzzi in December last year. The electrics failed on one side of one at the end of July. A third party company came out in the middle of August but couldn't fix it and needed to order a part. We are still waiting. I have had friends and family over in the last 2 months with no where to sit. Natuzzi are now ignoring me when I email for an update, since telling me they have no obligation to refund as long as they fix it. But surely I shouldn't have to wait this long?
Please, can anyone tell me what rights I have

Aylesbury_Duck

LovePorkPies said:

We took delivery of two very expensive reclining sofas from Natuzzi in December last year. The electrics failed on one side of one at the end of July. A third party company came out in the middle of August but couldn't fix it and needed to order a part. We are still waiting. I have had friends and family over in the last 2 months with no where to sit. Natuzzi are now ignoring me when I email for an update, since telling me they have no obligation to refund as long as they fix it. But surely I shouldn't have to wait this long?
Please, can anyone tell me what rights I have

What outcome do you want?  A refund, a replacement or a repair?

How did you pay for them?

Why does an electrical problem on one side of one of two sofas mean that visitors have nowhere to sit? 

A_Geordie

That's not quite true what the supplier is saying. 

Section 23 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says: 

(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer

The section goes on further to say: 

(5) Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined taking account of—

(a) the nature of the goods, and

(b) the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

There's no exact formula as to how to determine if something is done within a reasonable time or if the delay has caused a significant inconvenience as it will depend on the facts. It would not be unreasonable to argue that it has been over a month since waiting for that part and if they have ignored you or not given you a timescale on when that part is likely to arrive, coupled with the fact you are without a sofa and affects the convenience of friends and family or other visitors coming over and not being able to sit could, when taken together, amount to an unreasonable time and/or significant inconvenience. 

However, the only way you could be certain is by pursuing a claim via legal proceedings and seeking a judgment in your favour, unless the suppler admits as much beforehand or agrees to settle before it gets to an actual court hearing

As an aside, the CRA says the supplier is only allowed one attempt at a repair and your post suggests that there was an attempt to repair it but the person coming out was unable to and stated a part was needed. It may be arguable that the engineer coming out to attempt a fix constituted a repair for the purposes of the CRA and that repair failed, resulting in a part needed to be ordered (which would count as the second attempt at a repair). As the engineer couldn't fix the problem, you may have a potential argument that you are entitled to exercise your final right to reject and seek a refund that way. 

I suppose the question is, what do you want to do now?

Ergates

A_Geordie said:

It may be arguable that the engineer coming out to attempt a fix constituted a repair for the purposes of the CRA and that repair failed, resulting in a part needed to be ordered (which would count as the second attempt at a repair).

I don't think that would stand - it is very common for the "repairer" to first have to come out and assess the "thing" to determine what repairs are necessary and, unless the parts in question are very common, obtain the necessary part before attempting the repair.

I think the time it's taking to get the part is a stronger argument to make here.

A_Geordie

Ergates said:

A_Geordie said:

It may be arguable that the engineer coming out to attempt a fix constituted a repair for the purposes of the CRA and that repair failed, resulting in a part needed to be ordered (which would count as the second attempt at a repair).

I don't think that would stand - it is very common for the "repairer" to first have to come out and assess the "thing" to determine what repairs are necessary and, unless the parts in question are very common, obtain the necessary part before attempting the repair.

I think the time it's taking to get the part is a stronger argument to make here.

I agree and disagree with your comment. 

Yes, I would agree that sending someone out to carry out an assessment is unlikely to be determined as an attempt at a repair for the purposes of the CRA but if the engineer has decided to try go beyond that i.e. they take the sofa apart, tinker with it and attempting to get the sofa working again, then in my view that would constitute a repair and goes beyond a mere assessment of the issue.

This is why I qualified that statement by saying it may be arguable because it actually depends on what the engineer came out to do. The CRA doesn't provide a legal definition of a repair and so you would have to look at the ordinary meaning of the word 'repair' and then decide whether the engineer's actions fell within that meaning. 

What we do know is that the OP said a third party company came out to look at the sofa and reading between the lines that third party co. is likely to be a specialist repair company so it could be inferred from that understanding that they were instructed to come out to attempt a repair or fix of the issue. If the OP has other evidence to support this interpretation such as an email or text message then I would find it difficult that a court would determine that the engineer was simply assessing the situation and no repair had been attempted.

If I was in the OP's shoes and was looking at starting legal proceedings, I would certainly want to use the attempted repair argument in addition to the reasonable time/significant inconvenience argument, since civil cases rest on the balance of probabilities and the OP only needs enough to persuade the judge's mind and doesn't require concrete proof - a series of statements or events leading up to something is sufficient to tip that balance in the OP's favour.

The burden might then shift to the supplier to prove it was not their intention to carry out a repair by sending out a third party specialist repair company to the OP's address, especially if the OP communicated to the supplier that they wanted it to be repaired.

LovePorkPies

Thank you for all your comments. 

sheramber

It depends on what thenOP wants.

Do they want matching sofas?

Would they be able to buy a matching one if they got a refund?

PHK

They are an Italian company and all the parts etc come from Italy or the far east.  To add to that they experienced a big operating loss last year and are restructuring. I’d imagine the lead time would be pretty similar to the lead time for a new sofa.