Dunelm Ezra Bench Set Debacle - What to do?

KMCG1969

Hello All, Apologies if this is an obvious ask as it's my first post and I'm looking for some advice on next steps.

My son and his partner but an Ezra Bench Set (£349.00 plus £9.95 delivery) circa Dec 2024 on the Dunelm website paying by credit card.

In Dec 2025 my son noticed one of the benches had started to fail in the form of a collapse of the internals of the bench leaving a deep impression (I suspect it's wood effect and it's the failure of the internals).

We wrote to Dunelm seeking their support and asking for a repair, replacement or refund. We were told that was not possible as the 12 month warranty had in fact just run out.

After doing some searching on this website we wrote back quoting the consumer protection act and again requesting a repair, replacement or refund.

We had an email from Dunelm stating the following:

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to set out your concerns so thoroughly. I’m sorry to hear about the issue with your Ezra Dining Table and Bench Set, and I completely understand how disappointing it is to experience a structural fault so soon after purchase. I appreciate your reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly regarding reasonable durability. You are absolutely right that furniture of this type should be expected to last longer than 12 months, and I understand why you feel the product has not met this standard. However as the Ezra Bench set only comes supplied with a 12 month product guarantee as stated on the website were unable to proceed now out of this period  Im sorry this isn't the outcome you had anticipated Have a lovely evening

KMCG1969

Sorry I must've hit the post button by accident.

So my question is what should we do next and isn't it interesting that Dunelm agree that product hasn't achieved reasonable durability but still say no warranty no interest.

Kind regards, Kevin

eskbanker

As ever, there's a difference between having rights and enforcing them, so you may need to pursue them via small claims if they're uncooperative - bear in mind too that the onus is on you to demonstrate that a fault was present at the time of sale, even if latent, as opposed to damage from misuse, lack of care/maintenance, etc, and you may need to get an expert to inspect it and confirm in writing.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81909162#Comment_81909162

As you have realised the reply from Dunelm demonstrates that they haven't a clue. Your statutory rights as a consumer have absolutely nothing to do with any warranty and whether or not it has expired.

You are correct that goods have to be of satisfactory quality under s9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and one of the aspects of satisfactory quality is that goods should be durable.

As it is more than 6 months from purchase of the goods you need to "prove" on the balance of probability that the goods are not of satisfactory quality/are not durable. Contributors here generally take that to mean that you will need to get some kind of "independent expert" report that the item is not of satisfactory quality/not durable.

While that is probably correct, I'm not entrely convinced myself.

What the relevant bit of the legislation says is:

"The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person [my bold for emphasis] would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a) any description of the goods,

(b) the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c) all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5))."

Durability is explicitly mentioned as a relevant circumstance in subsection 5.

My view - which I'm happy to admit might be wrong - is that a court doesn't need an "expert" to tell it what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory.

I'd suggest your son first go back to dunelm and explain clearly to them that he is not making a claim under any warranty and that he is instead exercising his statutory right to a repair or replacement* under s9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because the goods are not of satisfactory quality in that they are not sufficiently durable.

See what they say to that.

they'll probably double down, but if he quotes the law to them as per the link I;ve given, who knows?

If they do double down come back for further advice.

*At this stage he's only enttiled to either a repair or a replacement

eskbanker

OP says they already referred Dunelm to the CRA's durability requirements after they'd initially knocked the claim back and basically got the same (irrelevant) answer.

What the relevant bit of the legislation says is:

"The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person [my bold for emphasis] would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a) any description of the goods,

(b) the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c) all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5))."

Durability is explicitly mentioned as a relevant circumstance in subsection 5.

Assuming you're referring to CRA s9, durability is mentioned (along with other characteristics of quality) in subsection 3, whereas subsection 5 relates to "any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer".

Okell

@eskbanker - "… Assuming you're referring to CRA s9, durability is mentioned (along with other characteristics of quality) in subsection 3…" [and not subsection 5]

Whoops! You;re right - my error. durability is specifically mentioned in (3) not (5)

"… OP says they already referred Dunelm to the CRA's durability requirements after they'd initially knocked the claim back and basically got the same (irrelevant) answer…"

I know - but either it was answered by an idiot or they were trying to fob the OP off and hope he went away.

Before doing anything else I'd still go back to dunelm again and quote the law to them. It probably won't get a different repsonse but if the OP goes down the legal route they can at least demonstrate that they gave Dunelm every opportunity to deal with the problem but they didn't

KMCG1969

Thank you @Okell and @eskbanker, I'll suggest to my son we contact Dunelm Head Office Customer Services and quote the legal aspect again to see if we can get a different response. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Kind regards, Kevin