What are my consumer rights?

[YouCouldntMakeItUp]

At the beginning of January I purchased a new suite of furniture from a nationwide retailer comprising of a single armchair, a two seater sofa and an electric reclining chair.

Two days after the furniture was delivered I noticed there was a problem with the mechanism of the recliner. The company were very prompt in sending someone around to have a look. After 10 mins the guy decided there was not much he could do and left stating he needed to report back to a manager. The next day I received a phone call informing me that there was not a lot they could do with the chair and had decided to replace it. I waited almost two months for the replacement to arrive during this time I was told to keep and use the original chair until the new one was delivered. Over this two month period I noticed that other problems seemed to show up with the chair, overall I got the impression that the chair was very poor quality for what it cost, almost £700 just for the recliner.

Yesterday they arrived to replace my recliner and to my surprise they were not only changing the recliner but both the other, perfectly good pieces of furniture as well. Apparently this has to be done to ensure the colour of the leather matched all items. I was most impressed.

After removing the original furniture from my living room they proceeded to install the new ones. First in was the two seater sofa, as soon as the delivery guys removed the plastic covering I noticed some scuffing and a sligh tear in the leather near one of the arms. Having pointed this out I was about to tell them to take it away again but the delivery man said this was only a minor problem and that someone could easiely come around and fix it in a matter of minutes. Against my better judgement I accepted this. Next in was the single seat armchair - no problems with this. Finally the recliner, once they plugged it in and before anyone sat on it I asked the delivery man to check he mechanism, and guess what - the exact same problem as the with the original. The delivery man rang someone at the store and explained the problem. He then passed the phone to me and I spoke with a manager who apologised and said that the furniture was checked before it left whe warehouse. Anyway to cut a long story short she arranged to send someone out to look at the new furniture next week.

Having spent a few hours thinging about the situation I decided that there seemed little point in letting them try an fix the same problems again, especially as the furniture was brand new, why should I put up with "repaired" goods. Today I telephoned them and told them I did not want anyone to come to try and fix the problems and that I did not want the furniture or a replacement as I though the quality was generally poor. The lady on the phone told me she would have to get a manager to speak with me to discuss the situation and that someone would call me.

I have not yet spoken with a manager but have since read on a number of websites that this company do almost anything to avoid taking furniture back. I also read that they have stated to a number of people who quoted the consumer protection act at them that they have a right to try and repair the item first before they have to replace it.

What I want to know is, what are my rights here? Can I insist on returning the furniture for a full refund or do I have to give them the opportunity to put things right? I should say that I purchased the furniture on intrest free over 18 months and so far have made two payments. I should also say that so far I have no complaint about the way I have been treated by this company, in fact I would go so far as to say I have been extremely please with their professional attitude. It's just what I read on other websites that has made me wonder if all that is about to change.

thanks

[Bigmac versus]

You have rights as a consumer to return the lot under the Sale Of Goods Act and have a refund for what you have paid.


Sale of Goods: Basic Rights - Consumer Wiki

[Weird Al Yankovic]

It is right that you have to give them the opportunity to put things right.

But you have once already, have you not?

I'd demand my cash back. They sound like losers.

[Bigmac versus]

Originally Posted by Weird Al Yankovic

It is right that you have to give them the opportunity to put things right.

No you dont although many retailers will tell you this

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by Bigmac versus

No you dont although many retailers will tell you this

A county court judge told me this!

I had awful trouble with a garage and after their third attempt to put the repair right they still failed so I sued them.

I was awarded the claim and the judge mentioned that I had done everything right as a consumer including the opportunity for the garage to put it right, not once, but twice!

How bizarre.

[gyzmo]

The issue comes down to which part of the Act is referred to and timeframes.

the old way was to rescind the contract when goods had not been accepted or seek damages.

the "new" way requires a repair / replacement / refund in that order. It is down to the seller to choose which option, but it must not be inconvenient to the consumer and must be proportionate to the other options. As we all (hopefully) know, within the firt six months, the item is deemed to be faulty at point of purchase.

the seller therefore should be given the opportunity to put things right, but where attempts have failed, then a partial or full refund should be given dependant on usage of the product

I think in the above case the buyer has not accepted the goods, a repair or replacement is not deemed acceptance and therefore she should be entitled to get her money back.

[YouCouldntMakeItUp]

Thanks to everyone for you imput.

As they replaced the original faulty one with a new one, which is again faulty, do I have to give them the opportunity once again to make things good with the second new one?

[Bigmac versus]

The sale of goods act allows you the choice of repair, replacement or refund if the goods are faulty, I recently had some probs with Currys who said they are entitled to repair as their terms and conditions say. SOGA comes before terms and conditions and admittedly it had to go through their legal side before a refund was given. Most staff in retailers wont know about SOGA and will reiterate their policy which they say gives them the right to repair.

Trading Standards will also tell you it is your choice as to repair, replacement or refund should the goods be faulty, repaired previously or not obviously this is the case within an acceptable period of time which would depend on what the goods were.

[Bigmac versus]

Arrange for your goods to be returned, saying you are rejecting them under SOGA 1979, under which goods should be:

• of a 'Satisfactory Quality', i.e. of a standard that a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory - generally free from fault or defect, as well as being fit for their usual purpose, of a reasonable appearance and finish, safe and durable;
• fit for the purpose' - as well as being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, goods should also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of the agreement;
• 'as described' - goods should correspond with any description applied to them. This could be verbally, words or pictures on a sign, packaging or an advert.

... and you want a straightforward refund or exchange, your choice.

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by Bigmac versus

The sale of goods act allows you the choice of repair, replacement or refund if the goods are faulty, I recently had some probs with Currys who said they are entitled to repair as their terms and conditions say. SOGA comes before terms and conditions and admittedly it had to go through their legal side before a refund was given. Most staff in retailers wont know about SOGA and will reiterate their policy which they say gives them the right to repair.

Trading Standards will also tell you it is your choice as to repair, replacement or refund should the goods be faulty, repaired previously or not obviously this is the case within an acceptable period of time which would depend on what the goods were.

Hmm.

I'm not sure that necessarily complies, my understanding is similar to Gyzmo's.

Aiui, If a fault is inherent then you are entitled to get the retailers to repair or replace the item for upto 6 yrs after purchase. The choice is nominally the buyer's, but is restricted by the convenience to the buyer and the costs to the retailer.

Only when repair or replacement are not an option is rescinding the contract possible.

In real terms the most likely situation is as gyzmo said... Repair > Replacement > Refund, in that order.

[gyzmo]

quite right FC. The Act reads that the buyer MUST NOT require the seller to use a remedy that is impossibe or disproportionate to the other remedies. The only choice that the consumer has is to rescind the contract (which I think can be done in this case). B

[Bigmac versus]

Ok i can only comment on what ive been told by TS which was refering to a product under 6 months old, this is certainly what TS told me and I got a refund under this.

[YouCouldntMakeItUp]

Though I would give a quick update.

It seems my fears were all for nothing. A manager came to look a the second set of furniture and agreed that there were problems with it. I explained I did not want another replacement and wanted to cancel the order. Not a problem, said he would arrange to have it collected. He did however suggest that if I visited the store I may find an alternative to suite my needs, and, if this turned out to be the case he would be willing to leave the faulty one at my house until the new one was delivered. This helped me as if they took the faulty one away now I would be left sitting on the floor until I arranged to have a new one delivered by another supplier.

All in all, I have to say that apart from delivering two identically faulty items of furniture, which I think was pretty poor to begin with, the service I received was first rate. So it goes to show that maybe you should not believe all the horror stories you read on the forums and that some companies can get their act together. I had not intended to name the company in question but I will, DFS in Maidstone.