New settee issues - Sofology

[kendo4423]

Hello,

 

I recently bought by mum 2 x 2 seater leather settees from Sofology costing £2300. They were delivered on 7 November 2022 and within days of normal use by my mum and stepdad, the backs on both settees were showing signs of sagging. My mum reported this as a fault to Sofology and provided photos to support her complaint. 

 

Sofology sent one of their people to my mum’s house on 29 November and his assessment concluded that there is no fault on the settees, the rear cushions just need vigorous plumping on a daily basis to keep their shape.

 

My mum has been left in dispute with Sofology as they are denying any fault exists and therefore she has no right to refund or replacement. As she is in dispute with Sofology they are now going to send out an ‘independent’ assessor to look at the settees and feedback to Sofology.

 

My concern is that if he reports back that there is no fault, my mum will be left with two new settees, weeks old, that are not of good appearance, would appear not to be very durable and have not remained in a good condition for a reasonable amount of time without sagging.

 

In addition, at no point during the sale process in store, did the adviser state that the cushions needed daily plumping to maintain their shape. His advice was focused on care of the leather and suggesting the purchase of a leather care kit at additional cost. This would be more difficult to prove, however I would not have advised my mum to choose settees that needed daily plumping if it had been made clear, as she is 76 and suffers from arthritis. She herself wouldn’t have picked the settees if she had been made aware of this requirement.

 

Therefore, I foresee an impass situation ahead if the independent assessor decided there is no fault with the settees and my mum is left with them, which in my view are not of satisfactory quality and will not be durable for any length of time.

 

Can you advise on options?

 

Many thanks,

[dx100uk]

as long as they were reported as not fit for purpose within 30 days of them being in their possession, there is a no quibble short term right to return under the consumer rights act 2015 (old SOGA laws)

 

quite typical for sofology to ignore or hide consumer laws.

 

dx

 

 

dx

 

[kendo4423]

The complaint was reported within the 30 days. The Sofology assessor has fed back to the complaint team that there is no fault with the settees, the cushions just need a ‘vigorous plumping’ every day! 

[Manxman in exile]

But doesn't the short term right to reject only apply if the goods actually don't comply to contract in some way?  It's not necessarily enough for the consumer to assert that they do if the retailer doesn't agree with the consumer

 

If the retailer maintains that they do comply (and it would appear that the retailer is saying there is nothing wrong with the sofas) what does the OP do next?

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[kendo4423]

That is indeed where things are just now. Sofology claim there is no fault and that is their position so refusing right to reject. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[Manxman in exile]

@kendo4423  -  When these sofas were selected, did you or your mother (or sofology) discuss their suitability for her?

 

eg; was it explained that your 76 year old mother suffered form arthritis and therefore a sofa where the cushions required daily plumping would be unsuitable for her?  Did the sofology salesman suggest that the sofa would be "low maintenance" and not require plumping?

 

Speaking personally I can't stand any sort of chair or sofa where an integral part of it uses feathers (or any other loose material) as a filling.  They give no support and need constant adjustment.  Also anything like that can be very difficult for older people to stand up from.

 

Edot: cross posted with Kendo #5

Edited December 1, 2022 by Manxman in exile

[kendo4423]

I was with my mum when she was choosing.

 

At no time during the sales process did the salesman mention that the settees needed any type of daily care or attention to maintain shape or appearance. They also didn’t look like the type that would need that type of care. The only reference he made to care was about the leather and how to look after it, convincing her to buy a leather care kit.

 

I would not have advised her to choose anything that needed daily plumping and she herself wouldn’t have picked something needing that kind of attention. Funnily enough the settees in the showroom showed no signs of sagging or crushing despite customers sitting on them daily. 

[dx100uk]

load of ole twaddle.

 

contracts/ terms and conditions....

 

the issue has been reported within 30 days, it's not a case that the retailer has any chance to wriggle, it's a no quibble situation under consumer law.

 

the customer is stating it is not fit for purpose, the CRA gives the retailer no option at all to counter that claim.

 

there is i believe a furniture ombudsman? 

 

Homepage - The Furniture & Home Improvement Ombudsman

WWW.FHIO.ORG

---

The Furniture & Home Improvement Ombudsman, is an independent, not-for-profit, government approved organisation set up to help resolve disputes.

 

 

sofology are a registered member ....

 

get them on the case.

 

IMHO why dont sofology simply refill the arms??

not a big job.

 

were these purchased outright?? how?

or are they on finance?

[Manxman in exile]

Out of curiosity, can you provide anything to back up the assertion that if a consumer claims within 30 days that a product has a fault that the trader has no option other than to accept the claim that the item is faulty?   You seem to be stating that the trader cannot at all challenge such a claim...

 

(You aren't by any chance confusing the short term right to reject under the 2015 Act with the right to cancel under the 2013 Regulations are you?)

[dx100uk]

most probably done is before....

[Manxman in exile]

On 01/12/2022 at 17:19, kendo4423 said:

I was with my mum when she was choosing.

 

At no time during the sales process did the salesman mention that the settees needed any type of daily care or attention to maintain shape or appearance. They also didn’t look like the type that would need that type of care. The only reference he made to care was about the leather and how to look after it, convincing her to buy a leather care kit.

 

I would not have advised her to choose anything that needed daily plumping and she herself wouldn’t have picked something needing that kind of attention. Funnily enough the settees in the showroom showed no signs of sagging or crushing despite customers sitting on them daily. 

 

I think the law says that to exercise your 30 day short term-right to reject you have to establish that the sofa actually does not conform to contract in some way.  (eg actually is faulty, not as described, not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose etc).  Your 30 day right to reject entitles you to a full refund.

 

After 30 days and up to 6 months it's slightly different.  If a fault etc develops there is a presumption in law that the fault was present at purchase (although the trader can challenge this) and the trader then has just one opportunity either to replace or to repair.  If that doesn't fix the problem you can then insist on a full refund.  (After 6 months the position is different again but doesn't apply here)

 

With your mother's settee it doesn't seem clear that it's faulty, but you might be able to argue it wasn't fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.  Only you and your mum can really judge if it's of satisfactory quality or not, but if the cushions keep collapsing that might be a sign that it isn't.  You might be able to argue it wasn't fit for purpose if you'd explained to the salesman that it needed to be easy to maintain and to sit in for an elderly and arthritic woman, and the salesman had told you that it was.

 

You say that the display settees don't appear to suffer from this problem?  Is it at all possible that their cushions have a different filling from those on your mother's settee?  eg do those cushions have a firmer foam "slab" filling whereas your mother's settee uses a loose filling such as feathers or kapok or similar?  If so you might be able to argue that the settee sold to your mum didn't match a sample or model that she had examined before deciding to buy.  (See s13 and s14 here:  Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk).  Obviously if you try a demo settee in a shop for firmness etc you expect the one you buy to show the same level of firmness, not less.

 

You can really only argue the points as best you can with Sofology, and/or try the Furniture ombudsman as suggested by dx100.

 

[Edit:  If you get nowhere with sofology and the ombudsman and you are still unhappy, you could always try suing them.  But I think you'd probably need to get some kind of independent report from an expert (a furniture maker?) saying that there was something wrong with the settee before you'd get anywhere]

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Manxman in exile