This sofa inspection report was compiled for a customer in January 2025, who had disputed the alignment of the headrests and footrests on their new leather recliner sofas that they received from the retailer, Natuzzi Italia.
Having reached an impasse in their dispute with the retailer, they contacted their credit card company – who asked them to get a specialist to compile a sofa inspection report for them – in order that they could initiate a chargeback.
The customer contacted us – and we compiled the following report for them. The credit card company paid for the compilation of the report, so the customer didn’t have to.
The report is copied below – we have removed any references to the customer for the purposes of data protection:
RE: Natuzzi Bruxelles 4-Seater L-shaped Sofa with electric recliner end
To whom this may concern,
We are a professional furniture restoration and repair company – and I’m a trained upholsterer, accredited by the AMUSF (Association of Master Upholsterers & Soft Furnishers). As a company, we are regularly engaged by customers to reupholster furniture, provide advice, and repair furniture which has been supplied to customers with, or have developed faults.
THE CUSTOMER contacted us last month, asking whether we might be able to produce an inspection report on his behalf re: his Bruxelles 4-Seater L-shaped Sofa with electric-recliner end, supplied by Designer Sofas Group Limited t/a Natuzzi Italia (hereby referred to as ‘the supplier’), ordered on 29th August 2024, and delivered to him on 19th October of the same year.
My report on the condition of the sofa is below (carried out on Monday 13th January 2025), preceded by some relevant background information re: the customer’s dispute with the supplier (information provided by the customer), followed by a number of photographs which highlight my description and opinion of the sofa (as inspected in the customer’s home).
The customer suggests they complained to the supplier immediately following delivery of the sofa regarding the headrest position of the recliner end of the sofa (and indeed noted his concerns on the delivery note itself, which he was asked to sign).
The customer subsequently complained to the supplier, and the supplier agreed to send a technician to the customer’s home to inspect the sofa, this happened within 2 weeks of the initial delivery date (which was on 19th October – the customer cannot remember the exact date of first supplier visit).
The customer was still unhappy with the headrest position following the first supplier technician visit, during which they attempted to rectify the customer’s issues with the sofa. The customer contacted the supplier to make them aware of this, and the supplier suggested another technician visit to try and try once again to rectify, which was carried out at the customer’s home on Friday 15th November. The customer suggests that the supplier’s technicians took the sofa apart in his home in order to try and readjust the end-recliner headrest to align with the other sofa headrests, but were unable to do so.
Following this second supplier technician visit to the customer’s home, the customer contacted the supplier to inform them that they were still unhappy with the sofa as was delivered to them, and requested the supplier uplift the sofa, and process a full refund.
The supplier emailed the customer on 26th November to inform them that “after a thorough investigation, we conclude that the items in question meet the technical specification, and their appearance is well within accepted industry tolerances.”, and that as a result, they have rejected the customer’s claim/request for a refund.
It was at this point that the customer contacted me to arrange a sofa inspection report. As previously stated, I carried this out at the customer’s home on Monday 13th January. I present my findings regarding my inspection of the sofa, below;
Upon arrival at the customer’s home, they escorted me to their lounge (where the sofa was located), and I asked them to explain the history of their dispute with the supplier. Following our discussion, I visually inspected the sofa, finding the following;
FAULT 1:
As seen on the enclosed photo 1, the headrest on the recliner end of the sofa is significantly out of alignment with the others whilst the recliner end is in the ‘fully-upright’ position. Comparing seam locations on the adjoining headrest, the recliner-end headrest sits approximately 35mm further forward than the headrest on the adjoining fixed seat.
When I sat on this particular section to check the headrest positioning in comparison to the other ‘fixed’ seats on the sofa, the headrest/backrest is sitting at an entirely unsuitable angle, and as a result it makes this seat uncomfortable/unsuitable to sit on, in said ‘fully-upright’/seated position.
This would suggest either; that the frame of the headrest has not been constructed properly (in order that they line up symmetrically as per photo 6, or within a tolerable range, as per photo 8), or that there is a problem with the recliner-end mechanism itself, so that these sit in markedly different positions when it is in the ‘fully-upright’/seated position.
The headrests on the other fixed areas of the sofa have a differential between them that is also outwith what I would consider tolerable (20mm, shown photo 4), although the customer suggested these particular headrests and the differential between them wasn’t necessarily a problem for him, personally. Obviously the end-recliner headrest (by way of comparison) is much further out of alignment to the adjoining headrest (35mm differential).
FAULT 2:
When I reclined the end-recliner section in order that the headrest lined up properly with the adjoining headrest (photo 6), or within what I might suggest is a tolerable (if still undesirable) differential, of a maximum of 10mm (photo 8), this then allowed the backrest to sit at a satisfactory/tolerable angle such as the seat was then comfortable to sit on. This; however, led to another observation, highlighted below;
The footrest on the recliner-end (when the seat was reclined to an angle which allowed the headrests to line up properly with the adjoining headrest, and allowed a suitable seating position) protrudes so far forward from the adjoining fixed seat footrest area, as to be way beyond a tolerable/acceptable standard in terms of alignment/differential.
Whilst the recliner end seat is in the ‘fully-upright’ position, it protrudes approximately 20mm from the adjoining seat (although this produces the headrest differential of 35mm, and overall backrest-positioning at an wrong angle).
When the same recliner-end seat is reclined to a position whereby the differential between the headrests reaches the maximum tolerable differential (10mm, in my opinion), and the seating position is tolerable, the footrest area then protrudes approximately 55mm from the adjoining seat (photo 9).
When the same recliner-end seat is reclined to a position whereby the adjoining headrests line up correctly (and again, the seating position is tolerable), the footrest area then protrudes approximately 75mm from the adjoining seat (photo 7).
Whilst it would not be expected that the headrests and/or footrests line up with the rest of the sofa in a reclined position, in the ‘fully-upright’ position, they should line up correctly, or at the very least, to within a tolerable difference.
As a result, in its current condition, I suggest that it is not possible to adjust the recliner-end into a position whereby both the adjoining headrests, and footrests, either line up symmetrically, (or to within a tolerable difference) in any position, which would allow the recliner-end to match up properly with the rest of the sofa.
FAULT 3:
Photo 3 shows the difference in seam position (the join in the fabric between the seat and footrest area), between the recliner-end seat, and adjoining fixed seat, whilst the recliner-end is in the ‘fully-upright’ position.
The difference in positions between these adjoining seams (20mm approx.) would be beyond what might be considered tolerable in terms of acceptability, regarding the overall appearance.
Whilst the aim should always be towards gaining complete alignment/symmetry between adjoining seams, a small difference in positioning (whilst undesirable), may still be considered tolerable.
Anything up to approx. 8mm may be considered tolerable, in my opinion (as per photo 4, which shows the differential between two adjoining fixed seats elsewhere on the sofa).
Thus, the difference in alignment between seams (as shown in photo 3) is far beyond what might be considered acceptable, in terms of overall appearance.
Regardless of the position (fully-upright/seated > fully-reclined) the recliner-end of the sofa is maneuvered into, the seam-positioning differential in never less than the original 20mm measured (as per fully-upright/seated position), thus it cannot be argued that this fault is as a result of anything other than a fault made by the supplier, during the manufacturing process.
CONCLUSION:
Whilst having a mixed recliner-end/fixed-seating sofa such as this would of course present technical challenges during manufacturing & production, it has been sold by the supplier to the customer, as a single piece of furniture, and thus I’d expect whether as part of the reclining or ‘fixed’ sections of the sofa, that all sections fall within a satisfactory tolerance as regards general symmetry, and overall appearance.
Whilst differences in overall positioning of headrests, footrests and seams might be considered satisfactory (but still undesirable), the overall aesthetic of the sections which make up a piece of furniture should adhere towards alignment (and symmetry, where possible), and in this case the sofa (as presented) completely fails to meet what might be considered as acceptable or satisfactory, in this regard.
As a result, it’s difficult to reach a conclusion other than these issues (collectively) were caused by faults made by the supplier, during the manufacturing process.
The customer suggested that during the supplier’s technician visits to their home, no measurements were taken of the sofa/headrest areas whatsoever. If this is indeed the case, then I’m unsure how they may have come to the conclusion that the issues highlighted are ‘well within accepted industry tolerances’.
The supplier’s communications with the customer suggest that a thorough investigation/study of the furniture has taken place by the supplier, thus it may be worthwhile to compare a copy of the supplier’s investigation report with this one, for complete transparency.
Please let me know whether you have any further questions or queries as regards this report. If you wish me to supply further statements (or assist in further proceedings), I’m only too happy to do so.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature Upholstery