Consumer rights

[Joon]

Good morning

I purchase recently a 6 piece modular sofa which cost £2k this money was not easy to come by I had to save up a while for this
anyway the sofa was delivered and when the installers were done I noticed a large gap in one of the pieces like it hadnt connected properly I raised this with the installer he checked it and said its connected took a picture and told me to sign I said no as I didn't think it was connected ,he told he the picture was just for delivery purposes and we would need to raise it with the supplier ..I signed as I felt pressured
that day we left for our holiday whenever got home 2 weeks later we found more faults with the sofa we raised this with the suppler and sent at their request pictures and videos of these faults and for days the buck was being passed from supplier to installer and then blamed us for the faults. So we formally rejected the sofa and demand a refund
the installer then came back out and confirmed faults
The supplier claim that hes only and installer not a technician and therefore they cannot take their word on it after telling us they were waiting on the installers report
The are insisting that they send out a "technician" to inspect the sofa even tho it is very clear in the pictures and videos and report of the installers there is a fault
I have exercised my right 4 times by email and 2 times by recorded delivery
This morning they have refused again

Can I now start legal proceedings? And can I claime renumeration?

the faults are too much movement between the modules the brackets are not connecting properly
A large gap between one of the pieces
The stitching is lifting and end thread are left visable
the recliner when in the down position it overlaps the next module
whenvyou look at the sofa ever piece doesn't line up its all up and down

Many thanks

[R0b]

Hello

Can you confirm what right you have exercised? Are you saying the right to reject within 30 days was exercised?

[Joon]

Yes I have done this within the 30 days

[R0b]

In that case, the retailer cannot insist on sending a technician but the onus is on you to prove that the sofa was not of satisfactory quality, as described, fit for purpose etc. but the onus is on you to prove your case since you rejected within 30 days.

The next step is for you to send a letter before action which outlines the details of your claim, how the retailer is in breach of contract and also what you are seeking in return as compensation. There are plenty of examples and guidance online as to how to draft a letter before action so I won't go into that.

I'm not sure what remuneration you are looking to claim since you are the customer so I'm struggling to understand what service you have carried out on behalf of the retailer that you should be paid for as you haven't explained this in your original post. Can you expand on this?

Also, if you paid by credit card then you could also bring a claim against the credit card company as they would be jointly liable, but again you would need to send a letter before action and they would be a second defendant to the claim.

[Joon]

Hi

Yes so what I mean is can I claim any court costs that I accurIor is that on me ,if I am unsuccessful will i need to pay their costs
I am confident that I would succeed as I do have pictures and videos and report from the installers ....

I have sent emails ,recorded delivery letters .I have offered ADR ,they said they are not registered and they do not wish to participate in an ADR

We sent another letter exercising our right but recieved an email This morning stating as I am not prepared to meet their demands then the matter is closed

We actually paid by visa debit and had been advised by our bank that we may be eligible for a chargeback as the goods are faulty. Obviously proof has to be sent which we have done so just waiting to herebif we are successful or not

[R0b]

Assuming the court allocates the claim to the small claims track, which is usually for non-complex claims under £10k, then there are limited costs that can e recovered but it in short, legal costs are not generally recoverable but disbursements are such as issue/hearing fees, if appropriate the cost of expert fees (capped at £750 I believe) as well as travel costs and time taken off work to attend the hearing or if you are self-employed you would need to evidence your losses that day, again capped at something like £90.

Sounds like you have exhausted all options and they are not interested so sending a letter before action would be the next appropriate step. You can send the LBA whilst the chargeback is ongoing but be mindful if you start proceedings whilst the chargeback process has not reached its conclusion and then during proceedings you find out you are successful, your claim therefore becomes redundant and you are unlikely to recover any costs. So you should either wait for the chargeback process to reach its end or notify your bank that you no longer want to pursue that and instead issue proceedings.

If you want any feedback on your LBA feel free to post up a version for comment but make sure you remove any personal information and you can replace it with something like XXXX.

[Joon]

Hi thanks for all that info
I don't think I will ne sending anymore correspondence, as I think it's enough i will take your advice and hang off for the decision of my bank
i

[Pezza54]

Based on personal experience, this is what could happen.
The bank takes weeks if not months to make a decision on the chargeback claim, blaming lack of response from the supplier.
The bank eventually rejects the claim stating the supplier had offered to send a technician to examine and report on the faults. Depending on the technician's report the supplier would have repaired or replaced the goods. However the customer refused this solution
If I was in this situation I would go back to the supplier and arrange for the technician to visit.
Under CRA the supplier must repair or replace the goods within a reasonable time.

If Joon waits for the bank's decision, which may be rejection of the claim, and by refusing the supplier's solution, Joon may lose the short term right of rejection

[des8]

[QUOTE=
Under CRA the supplier must repair or replace the goods within a reasonable time.

[/QUOTE]

That only applies if consumer has requested or agreed to a repair within the first tthirty days, or is exercising final right to reject.
If consumer exercises his short term right to reject the trader does not have the right to repair (altho' the consumer might agree to allow the trader the opportunity to repair)

[Pezza54]

Agreed. But Joon hasn't provided any dates and went on holiday before rejecting the sofa. Is it reasonable for Joon's waiting time to be extended until he gets a decision on the chargeback claim?

[des8]

Post 3 states short time right to reject was exercised within the first thirty days.

However I also would not bother with the chargeback scheme, but that is a personal choice and does not invalidate the notice of rejection.

[Pezza54]

Apologies for another 2 questions. The answer may help Joon to make a decision.
Joon has exercised the short term right to reject the goods and provided evidence in the way of photos and descriptions of the faults.
The supplier has refused Joon's request and despite the photos wants a technician to visit.
Rob said the next step was a LBA
How much time has Joon got to send the supplier a LBA? Should Joon be starting a court claim at the same time as the chargeback claim?

[des8]

As R0b pointed out that whilst a court claim can be started at the same time as a chargeback claim, the court claim will need to be discontinued if the chargeback is successful before the case comes to a hearing. That would involve loss of court fees that had been paid.

LBA needs to be sent before starting the claim. If you have 6 years to initiate court action (Limitation Act) presumably Joon has until early 2029 (altho' I suspect matters might be dealt with a tad sooner)

[Pezza54]

Thanks Des. Can Joon use the sofa whilst the claim or claims are being decided?

[des8]

Best not to use it as CRA 2015 states the right to reject "entitles the consumer to reject the goods and treat the contract as at an end" (sec 20 (4) & (5))

IMO if you treat the contract as at an end you are relinquishing ownership of the goods and shouldn't be using them (but that is my take)