Do you know your consumer rights?

If the upholsterer agreed the sofa had not been abused – as you say, it has not been – then it seems reasonable to assume the failure was due to faulty or inadequate construction. If that were the case then you should be able to choose between a repair (not economic) or a replacement. This is what the Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives as your, and the retailer’s, legal right. If a replacement is not possible, or the retailer agrees to a refund, that effectively takes you to the “final right to reject” when a refund must be made, but that can take account of the use you have had. You’ve had 9 months use, so the reduction should represent this proportion of its expected life. If, for the sake of argument, that were 8 years then they could, in my view, deduct about 10%of the price paid..

It’s certainly worth negotiating, much in the same way that many people do before accepting an offer following an insurance claim. It might be worth exploring whether the company will offer a free replacement and a guarantee rather than losing money on a partial refund.

Hi Mandy – You can make a claim on the basis that the product is ‘not as described’: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product

The retailer may not be happy to give a refund because they will be left with a pair of trainers that they cannot sell. I think it would be fair to accept a partial refund on the basis that the problem should have been apparent before your son went out of the house.

That depends, I would suggest, upon how different the actual sizes were from what was labelled and how apparent the difference was when they were worn. Our left and right feet are rarely the same size so it may well be they did not feel too bad at first wearing.

The fault is with the retailer for supplying goods that did not match their description and the fault (not complying with the contract deemed to exist between retailer and customer) lies with the retailer. It seems to me that if this is within 30 days of purchase then a replacement or refund is in order if the retailers mistake would not have been immediately apparent..

I agree with Wavechange and Malcolm.

Selling shoes is a notoriously difficult business because of the necessity to try them on, which obviously cannot be done with mail order or on-line purchasing. This is why the consumer rights laws allow superior remedies compared with buying things in a shop where they can be inspected and, in the case of shoes, tried on. The trade has to make allowances for this problem and set prices accordingly but on-line outlets are relieved of the costs of operating shops so should not object to being fair to their customers.

Reputable on-line shoe sellers offer a free exchange or full refund if the customer is not completely satisfied but usually on condition that the shoes have not been worn outdoors or been damaged. But this case does not turn on customer satisfaction but on the goods not being as described so the remedy is clear. A small difference in shoe size is sometimes hardly perceptible but at Size 9 it would be noticeable and Mandy’s partner did notice that one trainer was visibly larger than the other,

It seems that the retailer has left open the possibility that Mandy might receive a refund so I think she should politely press her case. My feeling is that some negotiation would be appropriate and a small reduction in the refund accepted for a little wear and tear. The lesson is, of course, that things bought on-line or by mail order must be examined carefully before being used, immediately upon delivery if possible, and rejected within the time limits stated if there is a fault.

It would be in the retailer’s interest also to check the rest of the stock in both the respective sizes to see if there is another misfit pair.

While the purchaser has the right to reject the goods if the retailer does not comply with the replacement obligation under the Act, this kind of process involving sellers on marketplace websites and other forms of on-line trading can be far from straightforward and not as clear cut as legal advice supposes. Remedies for distance-selling problems are becoming increasingly hard to enforce. Many traders take refuge in the internet just so they can avoid the obligations of regular commerce. Eventually on small claims the purchaser is forced to give up as tracing and communicating with the seller becomes too fraught with difficulty.

I suggest you start by trying to negotiate a partial refund before looking at legal action, Genia. It’s disappointing that this has not already been offered or that there were no electric heaters available that could be used in the even of failure of the central heating. Best of luck.

I Assume you have checked that you correctly assembled the bed. If so, then presumably the fault could not be found until assembled. As you are within 30 days of purchase you are entitled, I suggest, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to a repair, replacement or full refund at your choice.

I have told them exactly what you have said but they are still refusing to give me a refund. I had to assemble the bed to make sure the gas lift mechanism worked on the ottoman it was the only way of telling if it actually worked. The headboard was cracked when I opened up the box it was in. They are trying to say that they terms and conditions state I have 15 days to complain and I am now out with their timeframe. I actually first reported the incident on 2nd January. I even tried calling over Christmas but they were closed

Hi Fiona – You have 30 days from receiving goods to reject them if they are faulty: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product

Nothing in a company’s terms and conditions can reduce your statutory rights. A company that tries to mislead customers is breaking the law. It might help if you have a word with Citizens Advice and let the company know. Providing that there is a fault, the company must not charge for collection of the bed.

In my view you were entitled to assemble the bed in order to discover whether it functioned correctly. Maybe you should now simply dissemble it.

The Consumer Rights Act overrides the retailer’s conditions. Tell the retailer that unless they comply with their legal obligations you will commence legal proceedings. It may be that if you paid by credit card you can claim a refund off the provider on the basis that the retailer has been given the opportunity to remedy the situation but has refused.

You could, of course, enlist the help of Which? Legal. It would be useful, anyway, to have their comments here.

..and apart from their vast experience they can send a template letter tailored precisely to your case. And that can work wonders.

Wickes are responsible for the final result, assuming you paid them to do both supply and install. “Quality” is one of the criteria they need to meet, together with “as described” which would cover what you have seen in their showrooms and brochures for example. So I would remind them of their legal obligations under the consumer rights act to bring the whole kitchen up to an acceptable level of quality, otherwise you will take legal action through the small claims route (that covers up to £10 000).

It would be useful to get a report from a professional kitchen installer on the quality of installation and the worktop in particular; worth a fee, I’d suggest. It would also be useful if Cosentino (Silestone) would give you a comment on the way their product has been installed, to see whether it is incorrect and not as they instruct installers. This search brings up their installation manual as a .pdf – “installation instructions silestone quartz”.

I suggest subscribing to Which? Legal for advice. This case may be complicated by a delay in taking action.

I get the impression Michiel has already been pursuing this for some time, without a result. If the installation is faulty, that would be from new so, I would suggest, at the minimum repair or replace as a remedy applies under the Consumer Rights Act. I agree that Which? Legal would be a useful ally.

Hi wev, sorry to hear about this.

Do you have either a current mobile phone number or a second recovery email address registered with your Gmail account?

Without those credentials, it can be difficult to recover a Gmail account.

Only a few days ago, I think Roger P posted on here to say someone in Poland was attempting to login to his Gmail – but Google’s security prevented that, because the miscreant concerned could not produce a further authentication factor. So, unfortunately, you may now be seeing the other side of that coin.

I’m also surprised that your changes of ISP has triggered this, because I do login in to my Gmail from a number of different locations and devices, so I’m not always using the same ISP or IP address.