Stuffed with Sofology - What are my rights?

ShinyShilling

Hi,

We bought 2 recliner sofas and an arm chair from Sofology in 2021 and since the time we bought them, we've had ongoing issues with the reclining mechanisms going, the stuffing needing replacing, footrests being left sticking out that won't go down and just generally a pretty shoddy set of furniture considering we've spent so much.

We bought it on a credit agreement, which we've paid off. Throughout our whole ownership, we've had to call the Sofology repairs team and then the Castelan repairs team, now well into double figures. We know the current repair guy on first name terms as he's been out so often.

We bought an extended warranty, which is due to end in October and for the last year, we have been trying to say to Sofology that the sofas have not been fit for purpose. They have spent so much time out of action whilst we awaited engineers to come and assess then repair the sofas. They have always been repaired, but the fact is, we feel we shouldn't have had to call for repairs with such high frequency.

We have tried to discuss the matter with Sofology and they don't want to know. Asked to speak to a manager and refused. They have always rebuffed our requests to discuss the matter further and are now saying that it's an issue which needs to be taken up with Castelan as our extended warranty is through them.

I was of the understanding that if the goods weren't fit for purpose, then it was the seller's responsibility.

Please could anyone advise if this is the case or not and who I might be able to approach to resolve this issue. The sofa broke with the footrest out earlier in the summer when I'd just had a hip replacement and I couldn't easily physically move from the broken sofa and it took weeks to sort.

We'd just like some support to recoup some of our money and buy a different sofa from somewhere with far better customer care. The sofa is not yet even 5 years old and has spent such a long time broken and out of action. One engineer told us that the specific model had been discontinued because it broke so regularly.

Please, if you have any advice, we'd be so grateful.

molerat

We bought it on a credit agreement, which we've paid off

What type of credit agreement ? You may have a s75 claim with the credit provider. Dig out the agreement and read it.

eskbanker

I was of the understanding that if the goods weren't fit for purpose, then it was the seller's responsibility.

Please could anyone advise if this is the case or not and who I might be able to approach to resolve this issue.

Yes, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, it's the seller who's responsible, so if you purchase faulty goods then these statutory rights apply against that retailer rather than any third party warranty provider. Provided that you're able to demonstrate that faults found were present at the time of sale, even if latent, e.g. manufacturing flaws, etc, then you can insist on the seller repairing or replacing the goods, and ultimately refunding if these aren't successful in addressing the issue(s).

Unfortunately, after six months, the onus is on the customer to prove that faults were there all along, as opposed to being caused by misuse, etc, so it's often necessary to get this in writing from an independent expert, if the retailer isn't being cooperative (the same would apply to a section 75 claim against the finance company). Even if you can show that faults were inherent, any refund achieved at this point will be heavily discounted to reflect the age of the sofas - the inconvenience of repeated problems doesn't form part of this calculation.

caprikid1

I think having had them and used them for 5 years you will have a relatively weak argument in terms of fit for purpose I would feel.

Most likely best outcome in this situation is the offer of a discount against new Sofas

ShinyShilling

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128563#Comment_82128563

We've complained for four and a half years!

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128871#Comment_82128871

But paradoxically this probably weakens, rather than strengthens, your case in terms of exercising your statutory rights - if you'd rejected the sofas when you first realised they were faulty then that would have been different, but trying to do so after repeatedly having them repaired under warranty over a number of years now makes it harder (albeit perhaps not impossible) to justify a CRA rejection on the grounds that they were always faulty.

Alderbank

…now makes it harder (albeit perhaps not impossible) to justify a CRA rejection on the grounds that they were always faulty…

Is 'on the grounds that they were always faulty' actually a right under CRA?

Whether it is or not, after their experience of a series of more then ten repairs over the last five years, every one of which subsequently failed, surely they qualify for s24(5)(a), the right to a refund because after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract, and also s24(5)(c), the right to a refund because they have required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the long-suffering OP?

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128988#Comment_82128988

It's unclear how many repairs have actually failed, but OP lists various different faults, without actually saying that any of the repairs were unsuccessful. However, my point was really that repeated repairs carried out by a third party under warranty must at some point start to compromise the ability to hold the retailer liable under CRA, and the passage of time must eventually have an effect too, in terms of latent faults taking five years to manifest themselves.

OP seemed to be suggesting that a repeated pattern of complaints supports their case, but to me, admittedly with hindsight, it would have been a clearer CRA case if rejecting the sofas under s24(5) after the second fault was found (whether or not this was a recurrence of the first), rather than waiting several more years before exercising that right - as above, I wasn't claiming that a CRA case can't be made, just that IMHO it's likely to be less straightforward than it would have been earlier on.

sheramber

and just generally a pretty shoddy set of furniture considering we've spent so much.

How much did you pay?