Thread: Bed problems - Sleepmasters - Does the Law help me?

Hello there,

I love this forum. You have helped me in the past and I am hoping you can help me again. My grandmother is 71, she recently purchased a bed from Sleepmasters.

I should first start by saying that she has bad eyesight, so if this effects anything, please let me know.


She says she had a good look around Sleepmasters and tried the beds out for comfort. The bed she liked best had a brass bedhead. She says she knew it was brass, because there was a large label attached to the bedhead saying ‘solid brass’. We now know that the bed is not solid brass at all (it seems to be a metal that looks cheap IMO).
The bed and bedhead were reduced from £1000 to £500. She paid for them in full and they were delivered to her house on 25 April 2009.
The next day her friend from next door came round to see what she had bought. She immediately spotted a large scratch on the bedhead. She also saw that one of the legs on the bed was extremely wobbly. My Grandmother is now frightened of sleeping on the bed in case the leg comes off and the bed collapses.

I spoke to the manager, Mr White, and he was very apologetic about the bed. He informed me that the display card with the kitchen should have indicated that the bed was not brass. He says had meant to change the card to indicate this clearly, but had not done so, and unfortunately he had been on his lunch break when she bought it. He said that, because of the error, he was prepared to offer us a different bed for a reduced price.

Mr White told us that Sleepmasters did not accept responsibility for defective furniture, but that my grandmother would have received a 5 yr guarantee with the bed. Mr White gave you a copy of the guarantee and suggested that you should contact the bed manufacturers, about the problems with the bed.

You contacted them and they emphasised to you that the guarantee only covered manufacturing defects and not defective delivery. They said they would come and inspect the bed, but if the problem had been caused by faulty installation they would make a call out charge of £70.

It seems to me like they are just trying to pass the book really. I would like to know if the law is on our side on the matter against Sleepmasters particularly – surely they cannot sell something that they say is brass and then it turns out is actually not brass. Please can anyone help? I would really like to know the actual legal statutes/case law that clarifies these issues.


What I want to know is:-

What does the law say about the fact that it is not solid brass, as advertised? Perhaps despite this my grandmother should have spotted this despite the display?
What does the law say about the scratch? (like is appearence and finish a claim in itself?)
What does the law say about the wobbly leg? (is it fitness for purpose or something?)
Does the fact that my mother's eyesight is poor affect the fact that she may have been expected to spot some of these faults? Is it arguably understandable that she missed these things?
Does the price reduction exempt the company from anything?
Has too much time elapsed for us to make a claim etc.?

Please, if anyone can help, I would very much appreciate it.

Also have a read through THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, just gone through a similar complaint with DREAMS, after i pointed out it was their responsibility not the manufacturers, they agreed to replace like for like.

Good luck

GG

Thank you everyone - That's great advice! I Knew they were trying to pull a fast one.

If anybody is clued up on the laws/statutes that are relevant here - that would be really helpful. I don't like the idea of me quoting statutes down the phone/in a letter when really I have no idea about them lol!

Thanks again - and yes if anyone feels they can provide further help I would appreciate it.

Originally Posted by gyzmo

Well, Here's a list:

1. Sale of Goods Act 1979 - s. 14 states that goods must be of satisfactory quality, durability etc.
2. Sale of Goods Act 1979 - s. 13 states that goods must be as described. The shop described the metal as being brass when it was not.
3. Trade descriptions Act 1968 - s.1 prohibiting false trade descriptions BUT this is more for Trading Standards and the offence is now found under...
4. Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Specifically,
reg 9 which prohibits misleading practices, as well as several others, such as taking advantage (I'd say) of the person's age and condition, stating that they are not responsible for dealing with breaches of contract when they are.

Actually this type of thing is Reg 5 - Misleading Action (describing it as one thing when it is another)

Also your Grandma would have to have had her economic decision making affected by this. In other words, would she have bought it had it not been described as brass?

I have been told that the shop are currently processing my complaint. I have just had some thoughts on the matter and I've done a little bit of research.

For the bed head not being brass as descibed - I am aware that she can possibly rely on s.13 (must correspond with the description) - but I am worried that if she has seen the bed before buying, she will be unable to rely on this as I have found, "it is important to note that this section only applies where the sale is solely by description. If the buyer sees the actual goods before the sale then s.13 can not be relied upon." I must say that the bed she received was actually the one she was looking at in store.

But equally I have read that if the "Goods which the consumer has seen if they are sold as answering a description", this will be good enough to satisfy s13.

Does anyone know if this is a Sale by Description, and therefore, can we rely on s.13 - does the fact that she saw the actual bed she was receiving mean that we cannot rely on s.13?

If it is of any importance at all, again, my grandmother has really poor eyesight - perhaps this may effect the matter?

Please help again!

Thanks,

Rob.

SleepMasters has refused to refund money to my elderly mother. My mother purchased a single foam bed two days ago and became very ill with the smell of it. She continuously aired the room out but the smell would not go away. The packing stated it would take between 2 to 24 hours for the smell to subside. This was not true.

I called and explained and the company was very rude and unprofessional. They basically told me, "too bad, you are stuck with the bed now. It's not defective". But it is defective because of the horrible smell making my mother ill. It has only been two days and the bed has not been used (it was for a spare bedroom). We are returning the bed to the store tomorrow even though they are refusing to refund our money. We are going to file a formal complaint with Trading Standards, Watchdog, and the Financial Ombudsman - are they any other agencies we can contact in order to get my mother's money returned to her?

This is the most unprofessional company I have ever dealt with. They didn't tell her about the smell of the mattress and the wrapping on the matterss was deceptive and inaccurate. Any further suggestions would be appreciated? A company should not be allowed to treat customers so disrespectfully, especially an 85 year old woman. It's shameful. Avoid this company at all costs.

Hi sian2010

Have a read through THE SALES OF GOODS ACT 1994, it put me in a strong position when i had a dispute with Dreams, i got a new mattress by threatening to issue court proceedings in the county court, for defective goods.

GG

Thanks Guzzleguts for the information - much appreciated!