Couple’s demand for couch refund not heeded
Just two months after elderly couple Maxwell and Linda Bukashe bought a three-piece R42,500 lounge suite from Winston Sahd, the brown-leather furniture sagged and they have been fighting for a refund ever since.
The East London couple said they did not expect the expensive furniture to deflate in their Nahoon home, because the company is known to sell high quality furniture – which they feel they did not receive.
Maxwell said they bought the suite in 2016 but it has now been in storage for more than two years – costing them more than R8,000 to date.
“We paid R42,500 for the threepiece lounge suite we thought was leather, including a R10,000 stand. But we were unhappy with what we got [and] the treatment we received from the Sahd store in Hemingways [Mall] when we complained about the lounge suite in particular.
“They said we must bring the furniture in for repairs, but we just wanted our money back, so we could buy elsewhere.
“We incurred further expenses and placed the furniture in storage to avoid being accused of using it for longer than we did while we were waiting for them to reimburse us and for them to collect it,” he said.
Winston Sahd Eastern Cape manager Riaan Schwartz confirmed they were willing to repair the furniture, but said the couple wanted a refund.
In their endeavour to be reimbursed, the Bukashes took the matter to the consumer goods and services ombudsman (CGSO), which assists in resolving disputes between consumers and suppliers in terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
In her September 26 2016 ruling, CGSO adjudicator Melanie Radcliffe wrote: “There is no reasonable probability of the parties resolving their dispute through the process provided for by this office. The complainant is advised of his or her right to refer the matter to the National Consumer Commission.”
Radcliffe said a query had been relayed to the furniture shop which “we received a reply from the supplier wherein they stated that they did offer an exchange and the complainant is willing to exchange the product for a slightly more expensive one and is willing to pay the difference.” However they were waiting for the supplier to come and collect the defective couch as they had made their intentions clear they wanted a refund. She wrote in her ruling that this information had been conveyed on numerous occasions however, there had been no further feedback from the supplier.
“The supplier has also failed to respond to any of our e-mail correspondences and as such this office can only infer that the supplier has failed to rectify the complaint.”
We incurred further expenses and placed the furniture in storage to avoid being accused of using it for longer than we did