Homebase Sofa

[JMC160]

Hi all.

My wife and I bought a sofa in the sales at Homebase, which was delivered to us in September 2006, so it's about 15 months old.

A few months ago, the load-bearing cross-member at the back of one of the seats snapped in half. I cut back the black lining to take a look and discovered it snapped because of a large knot right in the centre of the cross member.

I sent off a letter quoting SOGA a little before Christmas (it took me a while to find the time to write the letter), and got a reply back a couple of days ago saying that because it was more than 12 months old, they wouldn't be doing anything about it.

My question is, how long is considered to be a reasonable time for a sofa to last?

And can anyone help me with the wording for the follow-up letter?

[louis wu]

My question is, how long is considered to be a reasonable time for a sofa to last?

I think this is a difficult question, although I would say 15 months is nowhere near long enough, unless of course, it's been abused and used as a trampoline.

Without knowing the contents of your first letter, I would say that a second letter is generally a 'letter before action' giving them a further 14 days to resolve the issue before escalating it once more.

It's always difficult to advise people to threaten court action, because ultimately it's you that has to stand in front of the judge, but if you are happy with SOGA, and the sofa is in a good condition (apart from the obvious problem), then that is the natural progression.

Good luck

louis

[Bookworm]

A sofa should last more than 15 months, and seeing that it's obvious why it snapped, I think your letter should go on the lines of:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was disappointed in your response, which seems to be a rather blatant attempt to circumvent my statutory rights. You indicate that as the sofa is over 12 months old, you wouldn't be doing anything about it, and I fail to see in what way is your choice of 12 months relevant.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) says that goods should be as follows:

• Of satisfactory quality. This means the goods must meet the standards that any reasonable person would expect, taking into account the description, the price and all other relevant information. Satisfactory quality includes the appearance and finish of the goods, their safety and durability and whether they are free from defects (including minor faults)
• Fit for the purpose that goods of this type are generally sold. They must also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known to the seller at the time of the agreement.
• As described - goods should correspond with any description applied to them.

I would argue that the sofa fails on 2 counts out of 3, as it is not of satisfactory quality in respect of durability or free from defects [if you haven't in your 1st letter, give brief description of the knot in x-bar which corresponds to where it broke], which makes it fails on point 2, fitness for purpose.

I am asking you for the last time to redress the situation with [replacement, repair, refund, pick the one or ones you feel is appropriate for your situation] as is your obligation under SOGA, or I will have no option but to issue a claim in county court for the sum of £xxx, being the price I paid. Should I have to do this, the cost of my court fee and statutory 8% will be added to the amount claimed, so it is in your interest to deal with this now.

I will also be making Trading Standards aware of your attempt to deny me my statutory rights under SOGA.

Yours etc...

Tweak as required.

Let us know how you get on.

[JB_]

I seem to remember the magic number for The Sales of Goods Act 1979 (As Amended) is six. Six months, six years.

The Sales of Goods Act 1979 (As Amended)
48A Introductory
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

(a) it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

If a fault becomes apparant within six months, the presumption is that the fault was inherent, that it existed when the goods where delivered. The burden is on the seller to prove that the fault was not inherent.

After six months, the burden moves to the consumer to prove the fault was inherent.

Most companies voluntarily agree to presume a fault was inherent for longer than the statutory six months. This is your '12 month warranty' which, as they should note, "does not affect your statutory rights", ie to place a claim even after that period has elapsed!

You have up to six years to bring a claim based on The Limitation Act 1980. The longer you leave the claim, the harder it is to prove but still, you have the right to claim. Failing to persue as soon as you are aware of the problem might let the seller claim you have "accepted" the fault! Not relevant in this case but as the rest of the post is starting to sound like a mini-essay I might as well aim for an "A" grade

From your description, the fault would certainly sound 'inherent' in that it was a defect in the material that has been a substantive cause of the structural failure. As has already been said, there is a reasonable expectation for a sofa to last much longer than 15 months, bringing you nicely back to the s 14(2a) SOGA 1979 objective test.

I think the proposed letter hits the spot and you'll hopefully get the problem sorted with minimal fuss!

[JMC160]

Brilliant. Thanks guys.

By the way, does anyone know the address for head Office? This is the one I've been using:

Homebase Ltd
Customer Services Department
Acton Gate
Stafford
ST18 9AR

[JMC160]

Hi!

Just got a reply to my second letter from Homebase today. This is what they sent me:

Thank you for your recent letter.
In regards to your sofa your guarantee with Homebase is 12 months after 12 months if you feel there is a manufacturing fault on you sofa you will need to get an independent upholster to come to you home and inspect the sofa and then send in the independent report to prove that your sofa has a manufacturing fault and is not down to wear and tear.
If the report comes back that there is a manufacturing fault then Homebase will replace the item for you, if the report proves there is no manufacturing fault then Homebase will not replace the item.

So I've just put together a real quick acknowledgement letter to send back in the interim:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding my broken sofa. I have enclosed a copy of it for your reference.
I will contact an independent upholsterer and have a report sent to you shortly.

Please be aware that if the report does state that this was due to a manufacturing fault, I will require remuneration for the cost of the inspection as well as a replacement sofa.

And I'll be calling round for an independent inspector first thing tomorrow!

[shywazz]

One thing that hasnt being high-lighted, what price did you pay for this suite, and homebase of all places a suite could have been bought from, when theres many retailers out there that offer more and better quality for the pound...........didn't you take out any extra insurance protection....

[louis wu]

Originally Posted by shywazz

One thing that hasnt being high-lighted, what price did you pay for this suite irrelevant, and homebase of all places a suite could have been bought from personal preference (who are you, his/her mum), when theres many retailers out there that offer more and better quality for the pound and many that don't...........didn't you take out any extra insurance protection what a waste of money....

What is the point of this post, are you just trying to wind up JMC? Far too much of this going on these days.

louis

[JMC160]

Why does it matter what I paid? Or where I bought it from? A sofa is a sofa. The fact it's only lasted 15 months is still very poor.

And why should I have to pay out extra for some insurance that would probably weasle out of paying up anyway, to be considered entitled to statutory rights?

[shywazz]

People pay cheap prices for poor quailty goods then moan when there break or feel there have being done, people get what there pay for, you pay cheap price you get cheap product then come on ere wanting advice due to cheap item breaking, you get what you pay for...
As for insurances being taken out at time of buying, this covers for times like this, don't you think LOUIS an extra £20 or £30 at time of buying would have saved all trouble now, so NO i don't think insurance is waste of money.........
People should'nt expect to hear what there want to hear, its not always the correct advice, the sofa could have being damaged by children jumping on it, people being too heavy, the list is endless, again the retailer is being persued by a dis-satisfied customer due to the item being no good after 15 mths, cheap things arent bulit to last, and 15 mths for a homebase suite is about right.....As for saying insurances are no good or poor value for money, thats why so many people find themselves in such a postion..... My reply is not to wind the poster up as you impolitely state Louis i'm entitled to post as is any1 else, regardless if the advice is taken aboard or not....its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH LOUIS

[louis wu]

It's rude however you dress it up, is it not in yur vocubulary to phrase it better, or was it your intention to wind JMC up, because quite clearly you have. Are you pleased with the outcome?

[louis wu]

its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH LOUIS

and what was what I said?

Caps lock and BOLD, this must be really important to you

JMC, this is just another example of bad manners, this thing would never be said be people if they weren't hiding behind a computer screen, it's pathetic.

Best to ignore such comments, there are plenty of others who will be constructive and polite, even if the advice is not what we want to hear (which is not the case here I'm happy to say).

Keep at it JMC, best of luck mate

louis

[JMC160]

Thanks Louis, I intend to. And thanks for the advice you've given so far.

Shywazz, the retailer is being pursued because a sofa I paid good money for has broken because of a MANUFACTURING FAULT. And if you read my first post, I wouldn't need to sit here repeating myself just for your benefit.
The sofa has not been jumped on as the only child in the house is 11 months old, so not capable of jumping on anything.
And the fact you've assumed that just because I bought it from Homebase then it must be cheap, I'm strating to get the impression you're just trying to insult me. How about instead of making these assumptions, you actually put some effort in and do a bit of research? If you're gonna pass judgement, research the facts first.