Mislead about a sofa

IainwT

Essentially, discussed with a furniture shop via email what options they had for a sofa capable of handling one or two heavy (220Kg) people.
Was told the best they had was not suitable for both, but would support 240Kg. My understanding was this would be suitable for one, and on that basis purchased the £4500 sofa.
9 months later it broke, and when contacted the shop told me actually it has a 20 stone/127Kg per-seat limit therefore had overloaded it.
They offered a "goodwill" gesture of a one-time repair of the broken components, leaving me with a sofa noone here can use safely and there's no way I would have purchased had I known about the per-seat limit.
The shop say they do not accept they missold the sofa and said go to the furniture ombudsman. The ombudsman ruled that I was "on notice" that it may not be suitable and I should just take the goodwill repair.
The sofa was only ever sat on by one of us; my heavy brother never sat on it at the same time as I. I was not told about the lower seat limit, and having discussed and discounted the La-Z-Boy sofa due to the low seat weight limit I think it's clear I'd have discounted this one too had they told me.
A couple solicitor types I've approached have said it's not cost effective and left it at that.
One of them LLMs agreed with my view, another didn't until I pointed out the earlier conversation about the other sofa at which point it changed it's tune, so can't rely on them.
My understanding is that my options are reduced to sue in small claims track though I read somewhere they'll take notice of the ombudsman finding.
Or accept their "gesture" so I can at least dispose of a working sofa; might get £500 for it and accept the £4500 loss.
I already pointed out the bits of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where it talks about information presented prior to purchase forming part of the contract, how their offer of a repair would not make the sofa conform to the contract but none of that was accepted.

Am I missing something? If so, what?
Was I just completely idiotic to have been mislead by the sales conversation?
Helpful thoughts and suggestions would be welcomed. Honestly I'm beginning to think something is wrong with my head.

My view is that:

1. at no point prior to the purchase was the lower weight limit mentioned. This seems to be a material fact that was withheld.
2. Sales did say they had nothing that would support both individuals, leaving me to believe one was safe.
3. Sales presented, in the context of the prior LaZBoy per-seat limit, the 240KG limit unqualified and without clarifying anywhere this was a total limit and there was a lower per-seat limit.
4. Sales presented these as a "best option"; not a "bad", not a "dangerous" option, not a "closest but no good" option. A "best option".
5. Sales presented the puffery of "high quality materials" and "higher rating than standard chairs" in a way inconsistent with a product that does not meet the requirement stated.

Timeline:
7/Feb/2025 - discussed with store via email suitability
20/Feb/2025 - Visited the store, sat on the sofa
21/Feb/2025 - ordered
6/May/2025 - Delivered
6/Mar/2026 - Broke, contacted regarding repair
23/Mar/2026 - Store advise not a warranty issue as overloaded due to undisclosed weight limit
30/Mar/2026 - Store manager stuck to that and told me to go to furniture ombudsman.
31/Mar/2026 - Ombudsman advise they can look into it.
5/May/2026 - Ombudsman finds against me.
5/May/2026 - S75 claim raised with card provider.
16/May/2026 - rejection letter dated 13/May card provider agree with store; they agree no misrepresentation and I should take the repair.

The sales emails where weight limits were initially discussed:

On 07/02/2025 15:25, <Sales> wrote:
Hi Iain
I have looked into the ranges that we have on the shop floor in terms of weight limit
unfortunately we don't have a 3-seater range to allow for the required limit for both
individuals.
Himolla 3 seaters would be able to support up to the weight of 240KG.
This would be any 3-seater recliner or static we have a selection on the shop floor to
try.
These are German made high quality materials are used and are tested at a higher
rating than standard chairs.
This would be the best option that we have at this present moment in time.
Please if you needed more information let me know
Best Regards
<Sales>
From: Iain<>
Sent: 07 February 2025 14:57
To: <Sales>
Subject: Re: La-Z-Boy Winchester - <...>
Good afternoon <Sales>,
Many thanks, however I'm afraid I'd need something twice as strong. Are there any
other ranges you have please that would be or could be specified to be
strenghtened to support one or two large individuals weighing in the environs of
220kg each?
Many thanks for any thoughts or suggestions?
On 07/02/2025 14:38, <sales> wrote:
Good Afternoon, Iain
Thank you for your enquiry in regards to the La - Z - Boy Winchester 3-
seater I have spoken directly to La - Z- Boy uk and the seat weight limit
would be 19 stone (120kg) as a recliner or static 3-seater.
This would be what they recommend, as a safe weight for personal use
within the home.
In terms of delivery service we charge £49 for delivery, sofa is set up and
we will remove all packaging.
Disposal we will charge £45 and the sofa would be removed at the same
time as delivery.
I have added a copy of the La - Z - Boy warranty attached above.
If there is anything else that you require, please let me know.

The rejection:

From: <AfterSales>
Sent: 26 March 2026 14:14
To: Iain
Subject: <>
Good afternoon again <>,
I’ve received further information from Himolla regarding your sofa and tried to reach you by phone, but I wanted to follow up here as well.
Himolla has advised that while a repair is possible, it falls outside the manufacturer’s warranty as they believe the damage relates to the sofa’s maximum
weight capacity. However, as a gesture of goodwill, we would like to cover the cost of the parts and carry out the repair for you free of charge on this
occasion.
We do want to ensure the sofa lasts for you, so please be aware that the manufacturer's weight limit for this model is 20 stone. Because this is a one-time
courtesy repair, we wouldn't be able to provide further assistance if the same issue happens again under these circumstances.
Please let me know whether there's anything else you'd like us to consider before I go ahead and order the parts from Himolla. Thank you.
Kind Regards

The Ombudsman finding:

Thank you for your application to the Furniture and Home Improvement Ombudsman.
I understand your claim to be that you specifically asked the business for a sofa suitable
for individuals weighing around 220kg each, that you relied on the information provided
to you when purchasing the Himolla 3-seater, and that the product has since failed. You
say that you were effectively misled into purchasing a sofa that was not capable of
meeting your stated requirements, that it is therefore not fit for purpose, and that a repair
would not resolve the underlying issue. You have therefore sought to reject the sofa and
receive a full refund.
The business’s position is that you were not mis-sold the product. They say that you were
clearly advised prior to purchase that they did not have a 3-seater sofa that would meet
the weight requirements for both individuals, and that the Himolla model was presented
only as the best available option rather than a guaranteed suitable solution. They also rely
on the information that the sofa is designed to support a total combined weight of 240kg
and say that the failure has occurred because this limit has been exceeded. On that
basis, they say the issue is not covered under warranty, but they have nevertheless offered
a one-time repair as a gesture of goodwill.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the complaint can be
upheld. The contemporaneous sales communication shows that you were expressly told
that the business did not have a 3-seater sofa capable of meeting the weight
requirements for both individuals. While a 240kg figure was provided in relation to the
Himolla range, in my view this was clearly positioned within the context of that limitation
and alongside an explanation that the product was the best option available rather than
one that met your stated needs. I am therefore satisfied that you were placed on notice,
prior to purchase, that the sofa may not be suitable for your intended use.
In these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the goods do not met description or that
the business agreed to supply a product that would meet the specific purpose you had in
mind. Due to the age of the goods, being over 6 months since delivery at the point of
complaint, the burden rests on you to demonstrate that the goods were inherently
faulty.The available evidence, including the inspection findings and the manufacturer’s
position, indicates that the damage is consistent with stress to the mechanism and motor
components, and I have not seen sufficient evidence to establish that this arose from an
inherent fault.
I have also considered the appropriate remedy. While I have not found sufficient
evidence to conclude that the sofa is inherently faulty, I have considered what the
position would be if a fault were present. As the issue arose more than 30 days after
delivery, the law provides that a repair or replacement is the primary remedy in the first
instance. The business has offered to carry out a full repair at no cost to you. In the context
of the findings above, I consider this to be a reasonable and proportionate resolution.
While I appreciate your concerns that a repair would not change the underlying
limitations of the product, those limitations were made clear to you at the point of sale.
Taking all of this into account, I am satisfied that the business acted reasonably in offering
a repair, and I endorse this offer as my award.
If you wish to accept the retailer’s offer, please contact the retailer directly to notify them
of your acceptance, within the next 20 working days.
Please note that as the award is processed by the retailer directly, the Ombudsman will
only be able to follow this up after the retailer has had a reasonable opportunity to action
this. Please allow 28 days from the date of your acceptance for the retailer to process
your settlement.
If you have not received your settlement within 28 days of communicating your
acceptance to the retailer, please do not hesitate to contact our aftercare team at
aftercare@fhio.org, who will be able to chase this up for you.
As a free and impartial service referral of a case to the Furniture and Home Improvement
Ombudsman does not dissolve you of your statutory rights to pursue a claim via alternative
means if you so wish. However, if an award has been made in your favour, acceptance is
in full and final settlement. For more information on this, we would recommend contacting
the Citizens Advice Bureau on 0808 223 1133 or on their website
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/contact-us/consumer-service/.
Once a decision has been communicated, I am unable to reconsider it unless new or
additional evidence is provided that may alter the decision. Please note that, as the case
has now been closed, any further correspondence may not receive a response.
Yours sincerely,

JJG

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82001453#Comment_82001453

They enquired about a sofa that would be capable of holding the weight of two people with a combined weight of 69 stone. They were told they had nothing suitable and the closest match was a sofa that had a maximum weight limit of 37.8 stone (presumably across multiple seats). Sofa has now broken after allegedly only been used by one person at a time of 34.6 stone. They’ve been offered a free one off repair, but won’t be able to use the sofa going forward as it will obviously just break again.

Grumpy_chap

I am not sure the numbers referenced by @JJG are correct.

As I have read the thread, the OP purchased a 2-seat (presumably 2-seat but I don't think the OP has been explicit) sofa.

Each individual weighs 220 kg (34.6 stone).

The sofa was advised as having a weight limit of 240 kg (37.8 stone). The OP understood this to be suitable for one of the 220 kg individuals to sit on the sofa. Actually, the 240 kg weight limit is UDL (uniform distributed load) so each individual seat within the sofa can take a point load of 127 kg (20 stone) being just over half of the total load capacity.

In resolving this, the OP needs to read the data sheet carefully and understand whether the sofa load limit was indicated as the UDL.

However, all of this is really very likely moot as the OP has already

• followed the retailer's compliants process.
• gone to the Ombudsman who found against the OP
• had S75 claim rejected (which is not surprising as S75 makes the cc jointly and severally liable as the retailer, but the cc would take the ombudsman decision as evidence of no breach of contract / consumer rights)

I am not sure what the OP is seeking by way of advice now. I can't see that there is any route forward other than to challenge the Ombudsman's decision and / or to try a small claims action (assuming the repair as indicated by the Ombudsman has not been implemented and "full and final settlement"). Both of those courses would seem to require that the OP can present some new and compelling evidence or technical points that the OP was not able to provide previously. Is there such new information?

As a point of query / comment - how has the OP acquired sofas in the past? Did the OP consider a specialist retailer offering products for the bariatric market?

Jemma01

I'm really sorry 4.5k loss is a lot of money. I do agree that they told you in no uncertain terms that they don't have anything supporting your requirement.

"unfortunately we don't have a 3-seater range to allow for the required limit for both individuals."

It seems all doors have been shut down except a small court. I'm pretty sure based on what you put up, they too would side with the business, and then you'll end up with court fees. You can still gamble on the court fees I guess, 4.5k is not small.

Grumpy_chap

I just read the post again and now can't understand how the OP came to the understanding prior to ordering that the sofa could support one individual at 220 kg.

The email of 7th February seems clear:

On 07/02/2025 14:38, <sales> wrote:
Good Afternoon, Iain
Thank you for your enquiry in regards to the La - Z - Boy Winchester 3-
seater I have spoken directly to La - Z- Boy uk and the seat weight limit
would be 19 stone (120kg) as a recliner or static 3-seater.

The OP also states they did not place the order until 21st February.

I can't see any basis the OP can really pursue this further. Small claims would cost money and almost certainly reach an outcome that is not favourable to the OP (if this route remains open - if the OP accepted the remedy by the Ombudsman then that is "full and final").

Rather than a case of "mis-sold" is this a case of "mis-purchased"?

Essentially, discussed with a furniture shop via email what options they had for a sofa capable of handling one or two heavy (220Kg) people.
Was told the best they had was not suitable for both, but would support 240Kg. My understanding was this would be suitable for one, and on that basis purchased the £4500 sofa.
9 months later it broke, and when contacted the shop told me actually it has a 20 stone/127Kg per-seat limit therefore had overloaded it.
They offered a "goodwill" gesture of a one-time repair of the broken components, leaving me with a sofa noone here can use safely and there's no way I would have purchased had I known about the per-seat limit.
The shop say they do not accept they missold the sofa and said go to the furniture ombudsman. The ombudsman ruled that I was "on notice" that it may not be suitable and I should just take the goodwill repair.
The sofa was only ever sat on by one of us; my heavy brother never sat on it at the same time as I. I was not told about the lower seat limit, and having discussed and discounted the La-Z-Boy sofa due to the low seat weight limit I think it's clear I'd have discounted this one too had they told me.
A couple solicitor types I've approached have said it's not cost effective and left it at that.
One of them LLMs agreed with my view, another didn't until I pointed out the earlier conversation about the other sofa at which point it changed it's tune, so can't rely on them.
My understanding is that my options are reduced to sue in small claims track though I read somewhere they'll take notice of the ombudsman finding.
Or accept their "gesture" so I can at least dispose of a working sofa; might get £500 for it and accept the £4500 loss.
I already pointed out the bits of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where it talks about information presented prior to purchase forming part of the contract, how their offer of a repair would not make the sofa conform to the contract but none of that was accepted.

Am I missing something? If so, what?
Was I just completely idiotic to have been mislead by the sales conversation?
Helpful thoughts and suggestions would be welcomed. Honestly I'm beginning to think something is wrong with my head.

My view is that:

at no point prior to the purchase was the lower weight limit mentioned. This seems to be a material fact that was withheld.

Sales did say they had nothing that would support both individuals, leaving me to believe one was safe.

Sales presented, in the context of the prior LaZBoy per-seat limit, the 240KG limit unqualified and without clarifying anywhere this was a total limit and there was a lower per-seat limit.

Sales presented these as a "best option"; not a "bad", not a "dangerous" option, not a "closest but no good" option. A "best option".

Sales presented the puffery of "high quality materials" and "higher rating than standard chairs" in a way inconsistent with a product that does not meet the requirement stated.

Timeline:
7/Feb/2025 - discussed with store via email suitability
20/Feb/2025 - Visited the store, sat on the sofa
21/Feb/2025 - ordered
6/May/2025 - Delivered
6/Mar/2026 - Broke, contacted regarding repair
23/Mar/2026 - Store advise not a warranty issue as overloaded due to undisclosed weight limit
30/Mar/2026 - Store manager stuck to that and told me to go to furniture ombudsman.
31/Mar/2026 - Ombudsman advise they can look into it.
5/May/2026 - Ombudsman finds against me.
5/May/2026 - S75 claim raised with card provider.
16/May/2026 - rejection letter dated 13/May card provider agree with store; they agree no misrepresentation and I should take the repair.

The sales emails where weight limits were initially discussed:

On 07/02/2025 15:25, <Sales> wrote:
Hi Iain
I have looked into the ranges that we have on the shop floor in terms of weight limit
unfortunately we don't have a 3-seater range to allow for the required limit for both
individuals.
Himolla 3 seaters would be able to support up to the weight of 240KG.
This would be any 3-seater recliner or static we have a selection on the shop floor to
try.
These are German made high quality materials are used and are tested at a higher
rating than standard chairs.
This would be the best option that we have at this present moment in time.
Please if you needed more information let me know
Best Regards
<Sales>
From: Iain<>
Sent: 07 February 2025 14:57
To: <Sales>
Subject: Re: La-Z-Boy Winchester - <...>
Good afternoon <Sales>,
Many thanks, however I'm afraid I'd need something twice as strong. Are there any
other ranges you have please that would be or could be specified to be
strenghtened to support one or two large individuals weighing in the environs of
220kg each?
Many thanks for any thoughts or suggestions?
On 07/02/2025 14:38, <sales> wrote:
Good Afternoon, Iain
Thank you for your enquiry in regards to the La - Z - Boy Winchester 3-
seater I have spoken directly to La - Z- Boy uk and the seat weight limit
would be 19 stone (120kg) as a recliner or static 3-seater.
This would be what they recommend, as a safe weight for personal use
within the home.
In terms of delivery service we charge £49 for delivery, sofa is set up and
we will remove all packaging.
Disposal we will charge £45 and the sofa would be removed at the same
time as delivery.
I have added a copy of the La - Z - Boy warranty attached above.
If there is anything else that you require, please let me know.

The rejection:

From: <AfterSales>
Sent: 26 March 2026 14:14
To: Iain
Subject: <>
Good afternoon again <>,
I’ve received further information from Himolla regarding your sofa and tried to reach you by phone, but I wanted to follow up here as well.
Himolla has advised that while a repair is possible, it falls outside the manufacturer’s warranty as they believe the damage relates to the sofa’s maximum
weight capacity. However, as a gesture of goodwill, we would like to cover the cost of the parts and carry out the repair for you free of charge on this
occasion.
We do want to ensure the sofa lasts for you, so please be aware that the manufacturer's weight limit for this model is 20 stone. Because this is a one-time
courtesy repair, we wouldn't be able to provide further assistance if the same issue happens again under these circumstances.
Please let me know whether there's anything else you'd like us to consider before I go ahead and order the parts from Himolla. Thank you.
Kind Regards

The Ombudsman finding:

Thank you for your application to the Furniture and Home Improvement Ombudsman.
I understand your claim to be that you specifically asked the business for a sofa suitable
for individuals weighing around 220kg each, that you relied on the information provided
to you when purchasing the Himolla 3-seater, and that the product has since failed. You
say that you were effectively misled into purchasing a sofa that was not capable of
meeting your stated requirements, that it is therefore not fit for purpose, and that a repair
would not resolve the underlying issue. You have therefore sought to reject the sofa and
receive a full refund.
The business’s position is that you were not mis-sold the product. They say that you were
clearly advised prior to purchase that they did not have a 3-seater sofa that would meet
the weight requirements for both individuals, and that the Himolla model was presented
only as the best available option rather than a guaranteed suitable solution. They also rely
on the information that the sofa is designed to support a total combined weight of 240kg
and say that the failure has occurred because this limit has been exceeded. On that
basis, they say the issue is not covered under warranty, but they have nevertheless offered
a one-time repair as a gesture of goodwill.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the complaint can be
upheld. The contemporaneous sales communication shows that you were expressly told
that the business did not have a 3-seater sofa capable of meeting the weight
requirements for both individuals. While a 240kg figure was provided in relation to the
Himolla range, in my view this was clearly positioned within the context of that limitation
and alongside an explanation that the product was the best option available rather than
one that met your stated needs. I am therefore satisfied that you were placed on notice,
prior to purchase, that the sofa may not be suitable for your intended use.
In these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the goods do not met description or that
the business agreed to supply a product that would meet the specific purpose you had in
mind. Due to the age of the goods, being over 6 months since delivery at the point of
complaint, the burden rests on you to demonstrate that the goods were inherently
faulty.The available evidence, including the inspection findings and the manufacturer’s
position, indicates that the damage is consistent with stress to the mechanism and motor
components, and I have not seen sufficient evidence to establish that this arose from an
inherent fault.
I have also considered the appropriate remedy. While I have not found sufficient
evidence to conclude that the sofa is inherently faulty, I have considered what the
position would be if a fault were present. As the issue arose more than 30 days after
delivery, the law provides that a repair or replacement is the primary remedy in the first
instance. The business has offered to carry out a full repair at no cost to you. In the context
of the findings above, I consider this to be a reasonable and proportionate resolution.
While I appreciate your concerns that a repair would not change the underlying
limitations of the product, those limitations were made clear to you at the point of sale.
Taking all of this into account, I am satisfied that the business acted reasonably in offering
a repair, and I endorse this offer as my award.
If you wish to accept the retailer’s offer, please contact the retailer directly to notify them
of your acceptance, within the next 20 working days.
Please note that as the award is processed by the retailer directly, the Ombudsman will
only be able to follow this up after the retailer has had a reasonable opportunity to action
this. Please allow 28 days from the date of your acceptance for the retailer to process
your settlement.
If you have not received your settlement within 28 days of communicating your
acceptance to the retailer, please do not hesitate to contact our aftercare team at
aftercare@fhio.org, who will be able to chase this up for you.
As a free and impartial service referral of a case to the Furniture and Home Improvement
Ombudsman does not dissolve you of your statutory rights to pursue a claim via alternative
means if you so wish. However, if an award has been made in your favour, acceptance is
in full and final settlement. For more information on this, we would recommend contacting
the Citizens Advice Bureau on 0808 223 1133 or on their website
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/contact-us/consumer-service/.
Once a decision has been communicated, I am unable to reconsider it unless new or
additional evidence is provided that may alter the decision. Please note that, as the case
has now been closed, any further correspondence may not receive a response.
Yours sincerely,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6668625/mislead-about-a-sofa

Aylesbury_Duck

I think your best option here is to sell the repaired sofa for whatever you can get for it.

The alternative is to try small claims court, but that will perhaps take many months and if you lose (which seems more likely than winning), you've incurred the court fees as well as the loss on the sofa.

sheenas

I am sure what the solution is here. I purchased a specialist lifting chair for my mother in law. Very few were designed to cater for over 150kg. Im not am not sure it’s going to be easy to find a suitable sofa.

Emmia

https://www.smartscooters.co.uk/cosi-banwell-rise-recline-bariatric-chair-40stone-user-weight#view-more

This recliner chair comes in 35st and 40st options.

I think at the weight the OP is at, they're going to need to look at specialist providers, rather than the high street.

Edit:The OP probably needs to look for "bariatric" sofas/chairs - this one also has a riser function.

https://hwbmobility.co.uk/product/chairs/express-chairs/express-bariatric-riser-recliners/repose-multi-bari-express-chair/

pinkshoes

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82001617#Comment_82001617

I agree with this.

@IainwT - The shop made it clear they had nothing suitable and discussed the limitations of what they could offer. You took a chance and unfortunately it didn't pay off.

At those extreme masses you need specialist furniture. Either get it repaired for free and sell it on for whatever you can get (second hand furniture doesn't have a huge retail value) or perhaps you could get someone to adapt it so it could withstand very large forces? E.g. repair it using much stronger materials?

Okell

I agree with @Grumpy_chap, although I think it's clear(?) from the ombudsman finding that the OP bought a 3 seater

I think the OP has misunderstood what the salesman meant when he said the sofa would support 240kg.

That's the total safe limit spread across 3(?) seats and not a single seat.

Perhaps the salesman could have been clearer given the circumstances of the OP's enquiry, but I don't think the salesman was necessarily at fault here

I think if I'd been the OP I would have sought clarification as to what the salesman meant by a safe weight limit of 240kg.

[NB - I say it's a 3 seater because the ombudsman says it's a Himolla 3-seater. If the total SWL is 240kg, does that mean each seat can only take 80kg on average? Isn't that bit low?]

PHK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82001817#Comment_82001817

Each individual seat can support more, but the common parts of the framework support 240Kg.

So for example, you could have a £110 Kg person in one seat and two 50Kg persons in the other two seats.

But I agree with the earlier poster that the OP should be purchasing specialist bariatric furniture.