Independent furniture retailer Pavilion Interiors has been left “confused” by a recent a court ruling that judged in favour of a customer claim.

The Surrey-based business, which has been trading for 30 years, appeared before Guildford County Court after a series of complaints from a customer disputing a bespoke corner sofa that was purchased back in August 2023.

After visiting the store on four occasions to view a display sofa, the customer completed the purchase and upon delivery rejected the product, initially claiming it had been made out of two different batches of fabric, as ‘goods faulty’.

This complaint was withdrawn after the business disproved the ‘fault’ claim with a customer. However, a second complaint was then made in regards to the cushions being ‘ill fitting’, whereby an independent engineer visited and found no fault.

A third complaint was filed over a section of black fabric being visible on the back of the sofa back cushions, which is a different fabric to the main fabric and part of the product’s design.

An engineer visited and explained it was a design feature of the sofa which is also available in a leather and was not a fault. In response to the customers complaints, Pavilion Interiors offered a number of solutions including to reupholster the whole sofa, replace the sofa, exchange the sofa for an alternative design or offer a partial refund in line with the published terms and conditions. The customer refused all offers and insisted on a full cash refund as the only solution.

The matter ended up in court with the Judge eventually ruling in favour of the customers complaint.

Rupert Greatrix, owner of Pavilion Interiors, commented on the ruling: “The last thing we wanted was to end up in Court, we love serving our customers but this lady refused absolutely everything we offered, we had little choice.  In Court, the Judge decided that because my salesman had not explained this design feature on the sofa, which the customer subsequently decided she didn’t like, we were liable for 100% of the claim and costs under Section 9 of the CRA 2015.

“The customer clearly had plenty of opportunities to view the sofa, she visited the showroom 4 times and looked in detail at the display sofa. Her claim was specifically for a ‘fault’, and the Judge found that the product was not faulty.  Despite finding it was not faulty, the Judge decided to go further and determined that because the sofa in the showroom was against a wall, it was not reasonable to expect the customer to pull the sofa forward to examine the back.”

The Judge stated ‘the appearance and finish of the sofa delivered to the customer did not therefore meet the standards a reasonable person would consider satisfactory in the circumstances where the black backing as a design feature was not specifically brought to the customer’s attention or was available to see on examination’.

“We feel the Judge got this wrong, as it was absolutely available to see on examination,” Rupert added. “Furthermore, the customer failed to mention the sofa was to be used as a room divide and back of the sofa will be on view.  Had she done so, of course we would have pulled it away from the wall to show her this view.”

Rupert also highlighted that the display sofa the complainant saw was recently sold to another customer, a well-known celebrity.  In this transaction, the client specifically said the sofa would be a room divider and therefore she needed to see the back of the sofa, whereby the sales team pulled the sofa forward so that back could be viewed.

“The sofa is currently acting as a room divide a beautiful house in Ascot,” Rupert said. “It’s an interesting one as it clearly demonstrates if we knew the true purpose of a product in a property; we would of course help the customer in every way.”

Following the ruling, Pavilion Interiors has decided to take further legal advice and are appealing the decision. “We are furious with the process and the District Judges ruling that somehow we are guilty of section 9 of the CRA 2015, which covers faulty goods, yet the Judge has specifically ruled that the goods are not faulty,” Rupert added.

“Furthermore, section 13 of the CRA 2015 says goods to be supplied as per the sample or model seen by the customer. The confusion with the judgement is if we fail to supply goods as per the model seen by the customer, we’re guilty of section 13 & if we do supply it as per the model seen, we’re somehow guilty of section 9, the Judge clearly got this wrong!

“This judgement in principal creates a problem for retailers, the Judge has said a customer can return goods, including bespoke goods, within 28 days under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if they subsequently decide that they don’t like a design element that existed on the product that they saw and they claim that design element was not brought to their attention during the sales process.

“For example, a chest of drawers could in theory be rejected if the customer wasn’t told the back of the unit has a different finish to the front at the time of purchase. Even if the buyer had numerous opportunities to carry out a reasonable examination.

“In my case, the customer has had the sofa for 18 months and has been using it. The Judge was not interested in that point nor interested in any of my terms and conditions; they were as good as useless in court. The Judge was equally uninterested in all the goodwill gestures I offered the customer to solve the problem.

“We will appeal this ruling but, in the meantime, we want to share this as a warning to other retailers of a potential pitfalls when dealing with a customer and more so the Courts!”