4 month old Homebase leather sofas....told it is wear and tear!!

[1984shell]

Hello

 

I was looking for a bit of advice if anyone would be kind enough to do so.

 

Myself and partner bought first house in Oct. Purchased 2 x leather sofas from Homebase at end of Sept. Kept in packaging in storage til we moved in on Oct 17th. We both work full time so not used a great deal. Reported arm loose on sofa 26th Feb and also some leather coming off on seam on the main seat of other chair. Sofas were £799.99 plus 3 year insurance paid also which was £139.99. Got 10% off. Without checking think we paid £850ish in total.

 

Upholsterer employed by Homebase came over. He had to screw the arm back on. It was held together with one of those large wood staple things and had come away. He took photos of the seams on main chair cushion. Phoned Homebase and he had reported back that there were scuffs on the seam and this was 'normal for a product of this type' and basically is wear and tear. Please bear in mind between purchasing and reporting this was 5 months and only used for 4 months. They say because is wear and tear they will not fix it. I was told could get an upholsterer out of my choice to write up a report and send to them (which I would have to initially pay for). I have since emailed and complained and got the same reply again.

 

I do not see how they can say it is wear and tear after 4 months of use? And why should I have to pay to get someone to write a report when it is under warranty and furthermore, I have insurance for.

 

Have since also found a hole on the back of one of the sofas where the main frame has pierced through the leather. Shocking quality dont you all think?! Not cheap sofas either! Have man coming over tomo about that fault but know as emplyed by homebase is only going to look at seam again and say is wear and tear.

 

I am so cross about it all and have not got money to throw away. Please please help as I am not willing to let this one go!!

[1984shell]

Posted before had finished -sorry for being so long and thanks in advance!

 

Shell

[gyzmo]

Well, they have shot themselves in the foot by saying fair wear and tear, because one would expect to get a lot more use out of the sofa before any such wear occurred.

 

As such, you have a good claim under s. 14 of the sale of goods act - reasonable quality and durability.

 

As it is over 6 months, it will be for you to prove that there has been a breach (which they have more or less done for you, but your own report should show this as well). In making the claim, you should be able to claim your costs back also. It's a nuisance, but worth it.

[1984shell]

Thanks so much for your reply - Would it count that my phone call originally reporting this was within 6 months from purchase date?

[gyzmo]

I think it would still be for your to prove. Shoudlnt be too hard though seeing as they're basically admitting it!

[mooreda]

remember - if you also bought on credit, you have joint protection under Sec 75 of Consumer Credit Act insofar as the credit firm are jointly liable with Homebase!

[Prolix]

Durability doesn't equate with wear and tear. What they are saying is that you have abused the sofa so they aint doing anything.

 

Although there is a 6 month burden of proof and that you did report it within the 6 months, basically they have said

 

"OK we accept that it is up to us to prove that the sofa conformed to the implied terms of the sale of goods act when supplied. We have looked at it and we think it did. It was you who damaged it and if you don't agree, get your own report to refute this"

 

So you are left in the position that you have to prove that there was a breach of S14 SOGA. They haven't admitted anything by saying wear and tear.

 

What about complaining to the insurance company?

[gyzmo]

And what evidence do they have to suggest that it has been "abused"? The report stated that scuffs on the seam was "normal". If that is normal then it suggests not abuse but a breach of s. 14. Simply ascribing a description as to how the damage is caused does not discharge the duty of the seller to prove the item conformed to the contract. They must show it has been damaged in the way they say it has.

[Prolix]

And what evidence do they have to suggest that it has been "abused"? The report stated that scuffs on the seam was "normal". If that is normal then it suggests not abuse but a breach of s. 14. Simply ascribing a description as to how the damage is caused does not discharge the duty of the seller to prove the item conformed to the contract. They must show it has been damaged in the way they say it has.

 

There is no burden of proof on the seller. If the buyer wishes to show that there is a fault with the goods he should prove that on the balance of probabilities. This argument is therefore rebuttable by the retailer and he doesn't have to "show" anything.

 

I'n noy saying that the sofa had been abused, but the retailer can say anything they like and the consumer has to then go and prove the contrary. The new remedies inserted into SOGA did certainly strengthen consumer's rights and provide for more remedies, but they are not without their problems.

[gyzmo]

I think 48A(3) establishes otherwise. Goods are taken not to conform to the contract unless (at 48A(4)) it is established that the goods did conform to the contract at the relevant time.

 

I have not heard anything that established this, thus my belief that the seller has not proven that the goods did conform to the contract.

[Prolix]

The retailers can easily get round "establishing that the goods did conform" because they will have the Manufacturer inspect them (if they themselves are not the M) and their opinion will be taken as gospel. Who is a better expert than the person who designed and maufactured a product?

 

SOGA talks about "establishing" and not "proving" and I think there is a difference in the standard to be met in each of these.

 

So once the retailer has established that the goods conformed, then the poor consumer has to go to the trouble of proving that they didn't.

[gyzmo]

Well we should agree to disagree - I think it is merely a matter of semantics - both words are synonymous and to me (and my dictionary) mean the same thing in this context.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi shell,

Is there any news or update