Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • old and new threads merged most of the so called arrested at XXXX etc are FAKES to generate money for the certain website you shouldn't have any issues at all unless there was a UAE court claim against you  
    • Then you did exactly what you were supposed to do.  It's common sense that you would need extra time compared to an able bodied person. But Excel and its sister company VCS are the lowest of the low.  We have cases where they have ticketed people for stopping in a no-stopping zone near an airport - at a zebra crossing.  I'm not joking.  We have another case where someone caused a taxi to stop by stepping in front of it, again in a no-stopping zone, so they ticketed the taxt driver, they actually expected the taxi driver to continue driving and to murder the pedestrian.  Again, I'm not joking.  These are the people you are dealing with.
    • we can help with this and probably make 85% vanish if you want too start a new thread and tell us about it all. NEVER EVER PAY A DEBT COLLECTOR!! they are NOT BAILIFFS!! dx  
    • it never happens forget it shame you entered into pointless FmOtL letter tennis...
    • thanks nicky. im trying.. ive never had a pcn. im trying to read up and learn all this ...i may be slow as theres a lot to learn. i can't afford this charge and my friend definitely wont be able to pay even if it goes to court. didnt know about this website until google searched excel ..as was considering writing them a letter of explanation about the vulnerability of my friend as im worried she might suffer a breakdown. i think excel did send photos of the signs - there are 2 main ones...but one was blocked by an artic as you drive in - also if you look at the building there is a loading door next to pay&display machine which blocks the disabled bays too...so you cant drive to the bays opposite the machine only the joining bays a you go in.. if the disabled bays as you drive in are full and the artic is there delivering...disabled people cant get to the other disabled bays and pay machine...quite wrong really considering theres more accessible non disabled bays that aren't blocked by the loading lorry hello ftdave - yes when we realised we had to pay and realised we didnt have any coins or any coins in the car ashtray for the machine we left... it may have taken  more minutes than an able bodied person because i cant move as fast as i used to because of my arthritis
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Nattuzi Glasgow corner sofa damaged and seeking refund which they refused


Tweedie85
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 306 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We ordered a corner sofa from Nuttuzi in Glasgow on 14 feb 23.

We had paid deposit in cash and advised it would be ready mid May. We received a phone call in April to advise the sofa was ready to be delivered and we had to pay the remaining balance . We paid this 15 May23, by card, and advised it should be a week for delivery . We disposed of our original sofa at this time but had not heard from the delivery company within the week.

I called at the end May for an update to be advised our sofa hasn’t been completed yet. I explained we had been advised it was but they stated they got us mixed up with another customer of the same name (a rare name) .  Our sofa was finally delivered after a few calls to them and my son was present for the delivery.  

The delivery driver called me and advised the sofa was ripped in the corner unit and had no legs with it. He was building it but we would be unable to use it until a technician  came out . I advised him I didn’t want the sofa left in my house if it was unusable. He took photographs, contacted his manager and took the sofa away.  

I contacted Nuttuzi by telephone and email on the same day to seek a refund. I advised I was not happy with the service, not keeping an unusable sofa in my house and concerned about the data breech with mixing  our details for another customer.  The manager and regional manager called and abruptly told us he would refuse the refund as he can have it fixed and redeliver within the next week. 


we refused and asked for a refund and told no and to sort this issue ourselves. 
 

can you please advise if we are entitled to a full refund? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Tweedie85 changed the title to Nuttuzi Glasgow corner sofa damaged and seeking refund which they refused

yes of course you are, unless this was to a specific customer design and not one in their usual 'range'

his reasons do not absolve your rights under the consumer rights act 2015

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't say whether you bought this online or you bought it on the premises.

Either way, I'm assuming that you paid either by credit card by debit card in which case you should begin a section 75 consumer credit act claim against the card issuer or else a chargeback against your bank.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean by cash, you went and withdrew money from an ATM? or had the notes lying around....?

then you went physically in to the store, made your ordered and gave the notes over when requesting it?

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And why did you pay by cash? And you say that you pay the majority of it by cash – what about the rest? It would be helpful if you would simply volunteer all of the details.

Also, you haven't told us whether you bought it online or on the premises. I appreciate that you went into the store with some cash but that doesn't tell us whether the original order was online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi , We were just married at the start of the, year, the money we got off friends & family was put towards the couch.

We went into the store to order and handed the cash over.

the the rest was paid with a visa bank card

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also be helpful if you would tell us how much was in cash and how much was on the Visa card. I'm assuming that it is a debit card and not a credit card?

You said that the majority was in cash – but then you said that only the deposit was in cash. Are you telling us that the deposit was greater than the outstanding sum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the store?

WWW.NATUZZI.COM

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Nattuzi Glasgow corner sofa damaged and seeking refund which they refused

£2500 in cash

£1050 in visa 

the sales women said we could leave a £500 deposit or pay wage ever we wanted at the time or ordering in store , we had the £2500 in cash so we put that down so we only had the £1050 left to pay when sofa was ready.

 

yes visa debit card 

 

yes that is the store

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have received a call from Nuttuzi attempting to redeliver and said it was only the dust sheet ripped and the legs but it was not fit for purpose on the day of delivery.

Due to the hassle we still don’t want the sofa.

They are trying to arrange redelivery and offered compensation (not stated what compensation)

can we still proceed for a full refund here ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Make sure that you put it in writing that you are not accepting the offer. Tell them also that if the driver turns up, that you will refuse the delivery. Make sure that you have this in writing

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@BankFodder @dx100uk  I have had 3 calls from Nuttuzi to attempt deliver which I refused . I have now received this email refusing refund 

In relation to the concerns, you have raised :

It is accepted that the feet were left off the delivery van in error. This was something that we could easily have rectified had you allowed the delivery team to return that day to affix these.

It is accepted that the dust sheet was torn. This is something that does on occasion happen. The dust sheet is designed so that when access to the underside of the sofa is required it can be easily removed and replaced. The dust sheet is not an integral part of the sofa and the fact that it was torn does not render your goods of unsatisfactory quality or make them unfit for purpose.

I have reviewed the events leading up to your being contacted by the store for payment and I apologise for this mistake. There has however been no breach of data protection rules here.

 In the circumstances we cannot agree to refund your purchase price.

What I am prepared to do in recognition of the inconvenient caused is as a gesture of goodwill honour the offer of an allowance of £300.00 which Neil has made and to deliver your goods at the earliest date convenient for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are probably wrong on the data protection issue – but the damage/stress you have suffered – if anything – is so little that I would leave it if I were you. Otherwise it simply looks as if you are up for a money grab.

Are you interested in the offer of 300 quid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have since had to purchase a sofa from IKEA as we could not use garden furniture for any longer the £300 wouldn’t cover this cost . Do you not think we are entitled to a full refund anymore ?  Discrepancies in their email also that we were not offered for them to return on the same day it was a week before we were told a technician had fixed the issue and the legs where not in the delivery van the driver had checked this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/07/2023 at 11:56, Tweedie85 said:

We have received a call from Nuttuzi attempting to redeliver and said it was only the dust sheet ripped and the legs but it was not fit for purpose on the day of delivery...

 

2 hours ago, Tweedie85 said:
  1. It is accepted that the dust sheet was torn. This is something that does on occasion happen. The dust sheet is designed so that when access to the underside of the sofa is required it can be easily removed and replaced. The dust sheet is not an integral part of the sofa and the fact that it was torn does not render your goods of unsatisfactory quality or make them unfit for purpose...

What do Natuzzi mean when they refer to the "dust sheet"?

Are they referring to the actual fabric covering of the sofa itself, or do they mean a temporary dust sheet put over the sofa to protect its fabric covering during transport?

If the former then I think you still have a remedy and you might even still be able to exercise the short-term right to reject.

When was the sofa originally delivered?  And was it returned on the same day?  And I presume Natuzzi still have it in their possession - it hasn't been returned to you yet?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dust sheet as in under the sofa but it was my son that was present when they delivered and the delivery driver called me to advised the couch was ripped and he hadn’t seen a rip like that before  . there were no legs so the delivery company where unable to build the couch so we told them to take it away on that day and they still have it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah.  So it's neither of the things I thought it would be...

Assuming that the torn dust sheet and missing legs meant that the delivered sofa did not conform to contract (eg it was not of satisfactory quality) I think if I were you I'd be arguing with Natuzzi that when you

On 25/06/2023 at 17:56, Tweedie85 said:

... contacted Nuttuzi by telephone and email on the same day to seek a refund...

you were exercising your statutory right under s20 and s22 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) to make a "short-term rejection" of the sofa for a full refund, and that they should have refunded you then.  The legislation doesn't give the retailer any right not to accept your rejection when you exercise the short-term right to reject.  The retailer plays no part in it.

 

See what others (eg @BankFodder) think, but I'd be inclined to take the position that when you telephoned them to ask for a refund you were clearly exercising your statutory short-term right to reject the goods and you are owed a full refund.

If they won't play ball you'll have to consider suing them.  (I assume you do not want to accept the repaired sofa and their offer of £300?  You have to remember that it can always be a bit of a lottery if these things get to court - you can't necessarily predict with certainty that you would win)

 

[NB - all the above is based on the assumption that the torn dust sheet and missing legs justified your rejection of the sofa in the first place.  Obviously Natuzzi will argue that they didn't.  I can't say either way as I wasn't there...]

 

 

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are entitled to a refund. What makes you think that you aren't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the dust sheet anyway?

Also you say that the feet were missing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, as advised previously and more than one occasion, yes you can go for the refund.

Stop allowing yourself to be controlled by these people.

Start setting the pace and the structure of what is going to happen.

I'm not sure that we can say any more until you post a draft letter of claim

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...