Hi @Pinky, it is disappointing that the new lounge exhibited a fault so soon after its delivery. It is possible that the lounge was damaged through its handling/delivery. The WA Consumer Protection has useful information in relation to products have been delivered damaged:
Missing or damaged products - Consumer Protection - LGIRS.
With faults, depending on whether the fault is minor or major, affects the options for resolution under the Australian Consumer Law:
I’m not sure but within a couple of hours I noticed the issue. Contact Plush and was asked to send a video.
All of the above information was sent within 24 hours.
Plush had a decent reputation until it was acquired by Nick Scali Group. You can search the Community and the net regarding Nick Scali after sales service.
Bottom line is you need to compose a formal ‘Letter of Complaint’ emailed to their customer service/complaints you apparently have, subject 'LETTER OF COMPLAINT and since they do not make the concept of lodging a formal complaint contact easy, back it up by post to the local manager as well as cc’ing Mr.Anthony Scali at Level 7, Triniti 2, 39 Delhi Road, North Ryde NSW 2113.
Be sure to use the tools available on the ACCC, Choice, and especially related advice here on the Community (via the search tool for ‘Letter of Complaint’). Your Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Office may also assist.
Please keep your topic updated and if you desire more guidance please ask.
Thank you for the support
I will definitely be doing that
Which is why I posted information in relation to when something is damaged on delivery. It is most likely it occurred through the lounge’s handling.
If you had seen the fault on delivery, you would have had the option of refusing receipt of the lounge. This means they would have to take it away and return with another lounge. It is unlikely to be another lounge, but the same lounge repaired and then returned in a repaired (or made good) state.
As it appears the repair was relatively simple, even if the repair methods might seem a little unconventional, it would be classed as a minor fault under the Australian Consumer Law. As such and under the Australian Consumer Law, Plush can determine how to resolve the damage. In this case, they decided to repair it at your home/place of delivery. Unfortunately, taking it further under the ACL won’t be possible. Likewise taking it to the Office of Fair Trading, this won’t also be successful as the damage has been made good in accordance with the ACL.
The only avenue to explore is to look under the manufacturer warranty/warranty provided by Plush for their products when they are damaged through the delivery. It is possible, but unlikely, that their warranty will describe a resolution process which is different to that being offered. It might be worth seeing if there is any differences, should they have a policy in relation to damage through delivery.
Contacting Plush formally may at least let them know that you are disappointed with their service. Plush may decide to do something outside the ACL, such as a goodwill gesture, to try and make you a satisfied customer. They might also not chose to do so as they may think that the repair has resolved the matter from their end.
A valid point is whether the repair was high quality to make a new lounge as new or only ‘ok’ in performance (look, feel, stability). Without sighting it we here cannot know.
If one buys a new vehicle and it comes with a bent fender but it can be fixed, and looks OK when it is, no worries. A year later the paint peels but there is a warranty. Is that what was purchased?
Will the repair described be lasting? Is that what was purchased? Based on the OP I think that is the worry if not just a worry.
Arming a consumer to take their best shot at getting satisfaction whether they are successful or not is one reason I am here.
The ACL is about resolving faults. The lounge had a fault, which was repaired and resolved in accordance with the ACL. I can’t comment whether the repair was acceptable or not, as I am not a carpenter/furniture manufacturer.
I would also be extremely disappointed that a damaged lounge was delivered or the lounge had a manufacturing fault soon after its use (such as something which might not have been attached properly in the factory).
It is worth noting the repaired lounge is still covered by the 10 year manufacturer warranty, including the repair. If the repair was substandard, it has the potential (likelihood) to reappear during the manufacturer warranty period.
Using your car analogy, say a glued piece of external door trim on a new car flapped around 24 hours after purchase because the glue failed (insufficient glue during manufacturing or being accidentally knocked breaking the bond). This is a easily repairable minor fault. Disappointing to the new car owner, yes.
The car dealership uses adhesive to reattach the trim. One might think the repair is ‘dodgy’, but, the car dealership would be best placed to determine the repair needed. The flapping trim has been resolved in accordance with the ACL. The new car owner won’t be able to take it further as the repair has been resolved in accordance with the ACL.
The Office of Fair Trading can’t make determinations outside the ACL, which would be the case if the OFT decided to take it further. An OFT can’t determine if there should be some form of goodwill or ex gracia payment should be made by the seller - only the seller can do this. They also can’t make determinations inconsistent with the ACL, such as they believe that a consumer should be given something not allowed for under the ACL for minor faults.
That is why taking it further through the ACL or OFT won’t be successful. If the OFT could make any determination of their choice, even if was inconsistent with the processes outlined in the ACL, most consumers would take faulty products to the OFT hoping to get a better deal than that afforded under the ACL. This would create uncertainty for businesses and bog down the OFT with large number complaints which were already resolved.
It is possible that
Some businesses choose to do this. One just hopes Plush is one of those businesses.
It would be disappointing to hear that the ACL requires one to accept a substandard repair. The OP may still seek preliminary advice from the OFT or respective legal advice on the issue raised.
None of us can, which leaves the OP in a situation of not knowing whether the repair has been in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation. And that the method of repair has returned the product to a condition that is as new which would meet the original life expectancy of the product. The question the OP needs to pursue with the supplier is whether they can demonstrate the product repair has been performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements. The statement by the repairer - (if able to be verified) suggests the manufacturer should be aware of the fault and have a recommended repair procedure that protects their reputation and ensures the product does not fail a second time.
Agree that the OP has the possibility of future remedy under the ACL if the product fails in a similar manner a second time. That is to claim the product failure is a major failure.
In the interim the OP has the option to use the tools referenced previously in the post by @PhilT to formally request Plush/NS provided details of the nature of the failure that their repairer found. Also to request details of how the repair was effected - materials/method used, and a further assurance the product repair returned the product to as new condition. The intent of the request to establish whether the repair has been carried out correctly. Plush/NS may or may not respond as requested.
That the repair required more than just a tightening or adjustment, and indeed needed the use of materials to repair or replace a very new item may in the opinion of OFT etc be seen as a major failure. Only the OFT can advise how it might proceed. The OFT etc may indeed decide that it requires evidence supporting the quality of the repair to determine whether the repair is minor or major, and if minor whether the repair completed is of an acceptable standard. In the last instance to argue the product has not been repaired and subject to further steps by the supplier to remedy.
How do you know this is the case? You don’t. It is based on opinion.
The OFT can’t make determinations about whether a layperson believes a repair should be done differently. They can only ensure consumer rights have been protected in accordance with the ACL. That being a fault has been resolved. In this case it has.
That applied to any repair done under the ACL. If this was plausible approach, anyone can challenge any repair saying they think it isn’t satisfactory nor returns the product to a near new condition. Any repair means the product is no longer in a new condition, as the product becomes a new product with a repair.
Such is allowed under the ACL, as the ACL allows repairs. If repairs weren’t an acceptable solution as the product is no longer ‘new’, then repair would not be an option under the ACL.
Yes, under the ACL, if a reoccuring minor fault occurs, this can become a major fault. The lounge has had one repair, because of damage most likely caused through handling during delivery, and the discussion is about a easily repairable minor fault. It is speculation that the fault will reoccur and is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Should @Pinky advise in the future that the same fault reoccurred, then a discussion can be had on the appropriate course of action at such time.
Yes, but taking it to OFT will not only waste @Pinky time, but that of the OFT. Providing such advice suggests a different outcome can be obtained.
Any letter can’t be that under the ACL, as the product has been repaired under the ACL. Again, wrong approach.
As outlined above,
As also stated:
If they don’t, they will have a dissatisfied customer who will spread the word as exhibited in the original post. And has to anyone who searches for Plush reviews online.
This isn’t possible under the ACL. The OFT can only work within the framework provided under the ACL.
As the damage is minor or easily repairable, Plush has the option of how to resolve under the ACL. They have the options to repair, replace or refund. They chose to repair which they rightfully can do.
What you are expecting is the OFT can override the ACL and rule differently, so a consumer can get an option that may be more preferable. This goes against the intent of the ACL and would create a precedence. The precedence being a consumer can challenge the decision of a business which can be rightfully (lawfully) made under the ACL to get something they want. If this occurs, the ACL no longer has clearly defined rights and businesses could likewise challenge decisions of consumers in the case of a major fault. A place no consumer wants as resolving faults will be bogged down by legal processes and disputes.
Taking that on board - and saying that we differ in our understanding - the proposition is that the ACL is deficient? IE In no situation does the ACL provide for a repair on the day to be assessable against a recognised standard or accepted good work practices for the item. The ACL “avoids responsibility on the day by defaulting to the seller/manufacturer is always right, but if it fails again please refer to the ACL for consumer rights”. Just my opinion of course. Others may agree or not!
This would be a very big ask and cause enormous cost to consumers. It would require some sort of documented repair instructions for every conceivable repair. It would also require mountains of paperwork to be kept to protect businesses when some decides to challenge a business/repairer.
Possible to do, yes. Practical, no. Expensive, extremely whereby costs would be passed onto the consumer.
The current system works well and isn’t failing. The seller/manufacturer commissions a capable and competent repairer to undertake the repairs. Where an licensed person (e.g. tradie) is needed to do the repair, they are commissioned.
I know personally that large furniture businesses like Plush (not Plush but a different one), use furniture repair businesses to repair damaged furniture. I have a good friend that did his carpenter trade with one such repairer. A significant proportion of their work was repairing new furniture damaged through shipping from the factory to warehouse, ready for sale. They also did warranty types repairs as well.
Or maybe just sign-off by a qualified, independent third party. But, as you say, it would come at a cost and ultimately that cost is borne by the consumer.
