Bought an office chair online... its far from comfy... what can I do?

[reb78]

I bought an office chair online. It looked comfy. Ordered on 24th June, arrived on 27th June. I may as well have made something out of sheets of MDF. It isnt comfy although it looks fine.

What ability or rights do I have to return this? It was from a B&Q verified seller - which looks like a B&Q run marketplace. Their FAQs say to contact the seller but I was kind of curious as to whether they have to take me seriously before they fob me off. It isnt damaged or faulty, just damn uncomfortable. I have assembled it and tried it for a few days (its unmarked) but its seeming like a waste of money to me. I have all the original packing still but would have to disassemble to return and would be careful to do that without damaging it.

I payed by paypal which may have been a mistake...

This is the returns page - it would be under the verified seller sections. https://www.diy.com/customer-support/returns-and-refunds#purchased-online-from-bq

 

[CompoSimmonite]

Google "Distance selling rules".
Dismantle, repack and return to seller for a refund as is within your rights.

 

[Morris]

This was on Watchdog a couple of years ago. B & Q will wash their hands of it as it's a "marketplace" and not them. Lots of unhappy customers who thought they were buying from B & Q and then found out that they had a fight on their hands.

 

[Kram]

How much was it? Have a link to the advert? Does it claim to be comfortable? In which case you could say its not fit for purpose.

As above with distance selling rules. You may have a restocking fee plus the postage to pay yourself.

Or buy some cushions and learn from the mistake.. sell it on?

 

[ajlelectronics]

I bought an office chair online. It looked comfy. Ordered on 24th June, arrived on 27th June. I may as well have made something out of sheets of MDF. It isnt comfy although it looks fine.

You are entitled to return anything not custom made, for any reason within 30 days. The terms and conditions imposed by the seller are irrelevant to the law. In my opinion, you are returning either "not as described" or just plain faulty. Don't say that you changed your mind or that you don't like it as that could end up with you paying return costs.
As ever, the Consumer rights Act 2015 is your friend here.

I payed by paypal which may have been a mistake...

Any large purchase should ALWAYS be by credit card.


This is the one that I bought after being in the same situation as yourself, I am quite pleased with it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DDTFTSGX?ref=fed_asin_title&th=1

 

[ajlelectronics]

You may have a restocking fee

Illegal under the Act.

 

[ajlelectronics]

Their FAQs say to contact the seller

Your contract is with whoever received your money.

 

[CompoSimmonite]

Any large purchase should ALWAYS be by credit card.

I do this - and then pay off the credit card as soon as I get home so constant nil balance.

 

[Kram]

In my opinion, you are returning either "not as described" or just plain faulty. Don't say that you changed your mind or that you don't like it as that could end up with you paying return costs.

In my opinion it sounds like the latter, its not faulty, he has clearly said that above. He just doesnt like it and has changed his mind. That would mean he should be paying the return costs and possibly a (small) restocking fee, if mentioned in the terms of sale, is fair.

The seller may not want a fee and it may depend on the condition that it arrives back in. No one wants to buy a return with ripped packaging and missing parts...

 

[reb78]

Its very uncomfortable so verges on not described... certainly not particularly filled with sponge to relax into as the ad says. The base seems to tilt slightly forward when you sit on it too rather than being horizontal or slightly lower at the rear.

https://www.diy.com/departments/vinsetto-ergonomic-heated-6-points-vibration-massage-office-chair-brown/5056602934880_BQ.prd

I have gone back to the worn one I brought home from work and its a lot softer even though I was replacing it because I felt it was getting worn out!

 

[reb78]

Any large purchase should ALWAYS be by credit card.

I usually do - somehow paypal seemed easier in case the item didnt arrive as I wasnt sure how legit B&Q marketplace was and a refund for no item is easier with paypal than CC in my experience.

 

[ajlelectronics]

I usually do - somehow paypal seemed easier in case the item didnt arrive as I wasnt sure how legit B&Q marketplace was and a refund for no item is easier with paypal than CC in my experience.

Absolutely not. Paypal are not bound by the Consumer Credit Act and so can set their own refund policy.

 

[reb78]

Absolutely not. Paypal are not bound by the Consumer Credit Act and so can set their own refund policy.

Fair enough, and lesson learnt.

 

[ajlelectronics]

In my opinion it sounds like the latter, its not faulty, he has clearly said that above. He just doesnt like it and has changed his mind.

That would mean he should be paying the return costs and possibly a (small) restocking fee, if mentioned in the terms of sale, is fair.

A change of mind is "The colour clashes with my eyes", not "It is too uncomfortable to use for its intended purpose. Another legal fault description would be " Incompatible for its intended purpose".
Restocking fees are not allowed under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, fair or not. The only deductions permitted are for damages to the item being returned, caused by the recipient. However that would be unusual.

The seller may not want a fee and it may depend on the condition that it arrives back in. No one wants to buy a return with ripped packaging and missing parts...

What the seller wants is immaterial. CRA2015 is the LAW and overrides the likes of Currys who believe otherwise.

 

[ajlelectronics]

Fair enough, and lesson learnt.

Your legal rights under the Consumer Credit Act Section 75 last for up to six years. Paypal will refuse to even look at a case over six months old, so if a leg falls off your chair at month 9, you have no recourse under Section 75.

 

[Kram]

A change of mind is "The colour clashes with my eyes", not "It is too uncomfortable to use for its intended purpose. Another legal fault description would be " Incompatible for its intended purpose".

One persons discomfort is anothers pleasure. Everyone is different and I have seen within my own family, big differences of opinion about a chairs sitting quality.

Its a chair that looks good and appears well featured, but I suspect to get what he thought he was going to get, would be 50-100% more on the price.

I had a quick search, you appear to be correct about the restocking fee being forbidden to consumers. However its still valid for business sales I believe?

 

[ajlelectronics]

I had a quick search, you appear to be correct about the restocking fee being forbidden to consumers. However its still valid for business sales I believe?

Business transactions are only bound by the Sales of Goods Act (1975?) and it was replaced for Consumers in 2015 by the CRA.

 

[ajlelectronics]

Its a chair that looks good and appears well featured, but I suspect to get what he thought he was going to get, would be 50-100% more on the price.

What you expect to get is a product which can be used either for its advertised purpose or for any other purpose disclosed to the seller before purchase. A chair that lacks the required padding is not fit for purpose, it's as simple as that.
I have bought a few, equally rubbishy. The one linked to above is 95% perfect and cost me £100.

 

[BarrieJ]

One needs to exercise caution with buying from Amazon Third Party traders too.

I foolishly made a purchase of two bandsaw tyres from an Amazon Third Party Trader; advertising using Amazon's platform.
Order placed and payment made on the 13th June, Amazon marked the order as 'out for despatch', delivery was promised for 22nd to the 25th June.
On the 22nd, the merchant cancelled my order, no explanation given, Amazon, still promising delivery between the original dates. Their terms state a refund within 3 to 5 days of notification of cancellation.
I posted feedback on the merchant's site, they responded by saying there'd been a custom's problem and they'd tried to contact me to discuss what I wanted to do.
They had made no effort to contact me.

On the 24th, Amazon were still promising delivery for the 25th, I got my £34 back on the 27th. They obviously, never had the tyres in the first place, yet waited nine days before cancelling my order and kept my money for the maximum 5 days.
Had I checked their feedback, I'd have seen they had 'form' for this behaviour.

A female friend in Washington Tyne and Wear had an almost identical problem with an Amazon Third Party.
Returning a faulty item, the seller wanted her to pay postage, or keep the 'damaged' item but only pay 30% of the purchase price.
It took a call to a 'human' at Amazon to get her money back and a return postal label.

Lesson learned; always check whether an item is being sold by Amazon or a Third Party and don't ignore the feedback.

 

[ajlelectronics]

Lesson learned; always check whether an item is being sold by Amazon or a Third Party and don't ignore the feedback.

Remember always the phrase " I am claiming my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to return these goods as faulty". It makes things happen when speaking to an Amazon bunny who thinks otherwise.