Land of Leather

[Legal Bob]

Hi Guy's,

Sorry to catch this thread so late but I have been dealing with a few land of leather problems myself of late.

The basic legal reply to your questions on time is:

1. Goods that develop a fault within the first 6 months:

It is deemed that the fault was present at time of delivery so the goods fall into the SOGA category of not as described. You can take a supporting measure from the quality sections to support this. The seller's hold the legal burden of proving that the goods were not faulty at the point of delivery, almost impossible but not always the case. During the first 6 months the consumer can elect the remedial action that they wish to choose, i.e. refund, replacement, repair, in certain instances, and this would depend on how long you have had the item. It is deemed that you should have long enough to inspect the goods, this time line may vary with the specific type of goods that you have but I always advise that if a product is even slightly failing in its first month, report it in writing to the company without delay, as this may form your case for classifying the goods as unaccepted, should the fault develop into a major problem. Deeming goods as unaccepted retains your right to request a full refund or recession of the contract past the 6 month watershed.

2. Goods that fail after the 6 months are deemed to be not of satisfactory quality under SOGA. There is no burden of proof required here other than that the fault exists, of course, this is on the part of the consumer.

3. The fictitious 12 month rule

Most people believe that a 12 month warranty is the long stop for repair or replacement. Legally this is not always correct.

Firstly, the 12 month warranty is a measure given, by the manufacturer, to the retailer, in order that costs for failure may be controlled at the retail end. Almost, a supporting gift to enhance the product offering in their business relationship. When you buy the product capacity to that warranty contract is passed to you the consumer, however, the retailer, with whom you have a contract is responsible to you anyway and you do not always need to accept that things needs to be administered under that contract. Remembering at this point that your purchase of the goods and the warranty are two independent legally identifiable contracts.

Along with this many retailers choose to sell extended warranty cover, which in my mind is a complete waste of money, I will explain why.

Again this is yet another contract, we now have 3, and of course the retailer wants you to buy this as what you are actually doing is paying the insurance premium yourself, on his responsibility. I.E. if the product fails, the cover provider pays for repair, not the retailer, well actually, you pay through your cover and offset the retailer’s liability along with increasing their profit margins you also give them a nice commission payment for selling you the extended warranty.

The reason why this is a waste of money in most instances is:

Luxury items tie a retailer to you, in law, by means of the statute of limitation, for 6 years. Yes readers, your retailer who sold you that awful, now falling apart suite is responsible to you for 6 whole years, by law.

Of course the extended warranty may be a good idea if it includes accidental damage cover but if not, it’s a waste.

If any of you would like any help with your Land of Leather problems, please email me, while I cannot represent anyone in court, I can help with the writing of letters, assessment of claims and basic pointers on what to do next.

Also, Land of Leather are under certain undertakings issued by the court, these were sought by the OFT Kent office, I'm sure they would love to hear from you also.

Happy hunting

Legal Bob

 

I bought a leather 3-piece suite in January 2004. It was not delivered until April 2004, and I was living on my own in that house until July 2004, when my wife and kids moved from another part of the country. So it's really had less than 2 years use. I paid nearly £1400!

 

The 3 seater only has one useable seat, the middle. The others have collapsed and feel like sitting in a bucket in comparison.

 

someone came to the house last weekend, sat in the two seater, and it looks like that's gone as well now!

 

I need to write obviously, but I am assuming a simple SOGA approach, i.e. reasonable quality etc not lasting for a reasonable time etc. Any other suggestions?

 

Thanks,

 

Martin

[Legal Bob]

Following on from SNG,

 

What a wonderful company they are.

 

Basic rule here is:

 

Unless they tell you what to do, and of course, what not to do the law views you as an ignorant consumer. Lets face it, they are supposed to be the experts in this area.

 

Under no circumstances get a second report. Firstly, you will have to pay for it and secondly, if you end up taking them to court, which with these guys is pretty likely, your report will not carry any weight and you will not be able to claim the cost back. If an independant report is required, the court will appoint an independant company to do this and the cost will become part of the costs of action and of course payable by the retailer in question when they loose.

 

If you want SNG I will help you through this one, I have all the right addresses but the first thing I would advise you to do is issue them a written notice of intended litigation, and give them 28 days to respond, under the L of L contract this notice should be sent recorded deliver to:

 

Land of Leather Ltd

Units K1-K2

Northfleet Industrial Estate

Lower Road

Gravesend

Kent

DA11 9BL

 

 

I will be able to give more advice either over phone or in another private area as some of the tactics that you will need to employ with these guys will have to be a bit millitant.

 

At the same time of serving notice you should get in contact with the Kent office for the Office of Fair Trading as L of L were placed under court undertakings by them a short while back for various problems that consumers have been experiencing. These undertakings were brought under the Enterprise Act and I am sure OFT will be pleased to hear from you. To be honest I have a file as thick as a donkeys jaw on these guys and you are welcom to join it.

 

Happy hunting

 

Legal Bob

[Legal Bob]

Following on,

 

There are a number of issues arrising here that I agree with, in part.

 

Firstly, SNG on the part of the finance, the best course of action is to pay it. If I remember rightly the L of L finance is a bit of a horror. One day over the interest free period and they apply the full interest charges to the full amount as if you were borrowing for, if I remember rightly, 3 years and you are tied in for that term. Which of course puts you in the 'battle of the banks' area and you can probably do without the hassle of that right now.

 

Second, the finance company are advising you to use the extended warranty contract to resolve the problem. This is the classic problem that these warranty contracts create. It is a separate contract and is not to be used to substitute the retailers responsability or liability to you. If you make such a claim, it might be much simpler to sort the problem out but on the other hand you let L of L off the hook and achieve for them, the very goal they set out to achieve when they sold you the warranty.

 

In this instance, the previous post is quite correct that you have acted in such a way as to accept the product. My comments about 'not as described' were in conjunction to any product that arrives damaged, at the point of deliver. In this instance it is the quality that is in question and there is very clear case law to support any claim that you may bring against the retailer. Providing that it is the quality that has failed.

 

I would persist with the threat to go to court, if the problem is not resolved, they will ignore you, they will send you letters telling you that you are wrong and they will probably even tell you, as I have seen in one letter, that by asking for compensation you are attempting to profeteer from the 'unfortunate situation which is what happened when one poor old couple asked for compensation for Loss of Amenity when they were without a servicable suite for 3 months.

 

Happy hunting mate

 

Legal Bob