Hi, can anyone give me some advise on this and what to do next?

My husband and I bought a dining table and chairs from Furnitureland in Oct 04. We also took out insurance to cover any damage to the table, which is glass, and the leather chairs. We don't normally take out the insurance but as we have 2 small boys thought it would be worthwhile for this!

About a year later we noticed that the castors on the table legs were coming loose and were breaking/broken and also the leather chairs were splitting at the seams. My husband called Multimaster and they sent out a technician. He said that we had a claim as the chairs were not leather, they were PVC and also that the castors were not of sufficient quality to hold the table, they would never last. We then received a letter from Multimaster informing us that our warranty does not cover against this type of damage. We sent a letter asking them to reconsider and didn't get a response! We also sent a copy to Ernst & Young as Furnitureland are no longer trading, but got nothing from them either. We are still paying for the table and chairs but are ready fed up that the quality is not what we were sold and that there is no come back with the insurance. Why give us leather master certificate of insurance and leather care brochures if the chairs aren't even leather!! I have left this on back burner but am now ready to kick a**! Can anyone help or point me in the right direction please? Any help greatly appreciated, thanks, Catchleen

Let me make sure I understand this. 1. You ordered leather chairs, but the inspector told you they are actually PVC? If so then there is a failure to supply goods as described, contravening s.13 of Sale of Goods Act.

Did the inspector write down what he said about the castors? It sounds like they were not of suitable quality from the start of the contract. In that case, it will make things easier as you have the required proof needed once six months have passed.

If you have bought these goods on credit, then the creditor is equally liable, so you can claim against them. The warranty will not matter - you have statutory rights which the warranty cannot affect.

Hi there, I am a commercial litigation solicitor who specialises in consumer law. What gyzmo says is perfectly correct. Your warranty is simply an additional insurance policy and does not affect your statutory rights. The furniture does not conform to its description nor does it meet the statutory satisfactory quality in terms of section 14 of the 1979. In terms of the act you can formally reject the goods in terms of section 14 and seek to enfore your contractual remedies, that is to say to formally cancel the contract and claim a refund (often referred to as damages.) Having dealt with hundreds of furniture claims very often the company will only respond once a solicitor's letter is received or if you threaten litigation.

Thanks gyzmo and legallyblonde25 for your replies. Gyzmo you asked about the castors, the inspector said to my husband that they werent strong enough when he visited and then in the letter we received said "following his inspection of the furniture, the technician has informed us that the plastic castors on the table legs have shattered under the weight of the table and the fabric of the PVC chairs has gone brittle and cracked." Also what do you mean by the "required proof needed once six months has passed?" We have bought these on interest free credit, so should I write to both multimaster and the HFC claiming that the goods are contravening the Sale of Goods Act and that I want a refund for the goods and the warranty cost? So effectively forgetting any insurances and going for statutory rights and should I still be paying the HFC? I'll have a look around the site for any template letters to get me started. Thanks again, that's brilliant news xx

Hi there if the furniture is bought on HIre Purchase then the finance company are jointly and severally liable as well. At the same time as writing to reject the goods write to finance company indicating that in terms of section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 they are jointly and severally liable.

Good Luck

with regards to proof:

Within the first 6 months of purchase, it is down to the seller to prove that the fault did not exist at the time of sale.

After 6 months, it is down to the buyer (you) to prove that it did exist at the time of sale. Having that report should go a long way to show that the goods were not fit for purpose in the first place. It should save you having to get a report to prove your case. The inspector seems to have done that for you already.

Thanks gyzmo for that. The inspector hadn't left an actual report with us but said to my husband that the castors would never last, although they have mentioned this in their letter. I've sent letters to the HFC bank and Multimaster by rec del and see what happens from there. Thanks for your help and I'll keep you updated with any progress x

Well the deadline has passed and we have just received a letter from HFC today saying that due to the Data Protection Act, Multimaster cannot discuss the account with HFC directly without our authority. So my husband called Multimaster and the lady on the phone could see that we had sent a letter but knew nothing else! My OH told her that we would send in a letter of authority so they can discuss the details with HFC. I would have thought that this wouldn't be needed as both companies received copies of each others letters. I'm now going to start to write a stronger worded letter to m/m and address it to the MD and see if that gets me any further. If anyone has any other ideas or advise, please let me know! Thanks C x

Multimaster have eventually sent a bog standard complaints letter and will get back to us within 8 weeks! HFC hadn't received anything from multimaster up to last week, as multimaster were denying having received our letter of authority . They have received it now though, as I re-sent it recorded delivery again. The deadline has passed (I'd even given them an extra week) so now I'm unsure of how to move forward.

HFC were calling as we hadn't paid them and my OH told them the saga, so maybe they'll put some pressure on m/m? Any ideas?

We've received a letter from Multimaster basically saying that its got nothing to do with them and they are not changing their mind regarding the furniture - what a surprise! My OH called them as they seem to keep going back to the warranty issue and our complaint was regarding the description and quality. The lady he spoke to wasn't bothered and told him he needs to contact Furnitureland /their administrators and take it up with them. Now I'm going to start a letter to the administrators explaining the situation and see what they say re the Sale of Goods Act, but want to make it quite strong - anyone got any ideas on wording that would help me out? I'd appreciate any help x

Update

I wrote to the administrators and have not had a whiff of an acknowledgement. The HFC asked for an inspection to be done by the Furniture Ombudsman. When I called them they told me that since Furnitureland were no longer members as they went bust, the cost to get an inspection would cost £350!!!! Well we don't have £350 to do get the inspector out so we wrote to Multumaster and asked them for a copy of the report their inspector did. They charged us £10 for the pleasure, but sent it. This has been forwarded to HFC with a set of photos. My OH called them yesterday as they hadn't responded and they've said they want a report from the ombudsman. My oh said that we cant afford to pay for that and that the original report should be sufficient. The girl is going to speak with her supervisor and get back to us. I hope that they accept the report we sent, it does say that the table is irreparable. If they don't accept it, my oh says he wants to contact one of those "no win no fee" crowd, but I want to steer clear of them and think perhaps the FOS? Just thinking ahead as I don't have much confidence that the bank will pay up. Any thoughts or advice appreciated x

The bank have got back to us and said they want the report from the Furniture Ombudsman, not the one we sent - what a surprise. My oh told them again that we cant afford the £350. In the meantime we got a response from the administrators with a form attached to complete to make our claim. They informed us that the current refund given is 1p in every £1!!! So now we are not sure what to do next - any ideas please would be appreciated

Update: We've sent another letter to HFC requesting again that they accept the report already sent to them but they have refused.

When we spoke to the furniture ombudsman, they are still asking for £350 for an inspection, which we can't afford to pay. Also, the outstanding amount owed is £250 and £150 of that is charges.

However, the lady at the ombudsman suggested my husband called trading standards. He did that and the lady there has said that it sounds like we have a good case and to forward copies of all the paperwork we have to her. So it's going off special delivery today and fingers crossed we may move this forward.

Fingers crossed!

Update: Trading Standards have told us that the bank are liable and we have a case to get a percentage of our money back, but we do still need to get an independent report carried out. TS have provided a list of inspectors they have and I've contacted one who has given a quote (substancially lower that the ombudsman). So I'm sending off my letter the the bank to let them know the inspectors details, giving them 14 days to respond if they have any objections and will not accept the report.

TS also recommended that we continue to pay any outstanding monies as this will go in our favour, so we've started to make payments again.

This is the first time I've dealt with trading standards and have found them to be helpful and prompt. I'll keep the thread updated with an further updates - good or bad!

Catchleen x

Update: We had our independent report done and sent off to the bank and trading standards. The bank came back to say that we should send the report to multimaster, which I did and asked them to review their decision. Multimaster came back and said that we were still not covered! Trading Standards then wrote the bank saying they were liable under section 75 of the consumer credit act and for them to resolve the situation. We got a letter at the weekend offering us all the money we have paid so far and the cost of the independent report back! It's been a long haul but we got there. Will be going shopping for a new table and chairs and wont be taking out any warranty.

Thanks for all the help I received with this, it's very much appreciated.

C

Glad you got there in the end. Again it is another demonstration of contempt of companies towards their customers. Why they couldn't have dealt with this initially rather than having TS writing to them before complying is beyond me.

But well done anyway.