RE: Willowbrook Manhattan 2-Seater Rise and Recliner Sofa

 

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 faults.

A customer contacted us last month, asking whether we might be able to produce an inspection report on their behalf re: their 2-seater Willowbrook Manhattan rise and recliner sofa, supplied by Kingswood Mobility t/a Willowbrook (hereby referred to as ‘the supplier’), ordered on 5th November 2022, and delivered to them on 21st December of the same year. 

My report on the condition of their sofa is below (carried out on Friday 20th December 2024), 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 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 various reported faults/issues), the supplier agreed to collect, and subsequently repair the sofa, as necessary. 

The sofa was collected by the supplier to undergo repair work on 25th January 2023, and was delivered back to the customer on 24th February 2023 (although the customer suggests they were informed this was a ‘remake’ of the sofa, rather than repair).

The customer was still unhappy with the sofa following the ‘remake’/repair work carried out. They contacted the supplier to make them aware of their feelings, and the supplier suggested a manager make a home visit to inspect the sofa, to which the customer agreed. 

Following the manager’s visit to the customer’s home, it was agreed that the sofa was not up to the standard required, and that it be returned to the supplier’s factory for further remedial work to be undertaken. The supplier then contacted the customer (in April 2023) to inform them that they would be “….re-making the sofa, to the original specification agreed at the point of order.” 

Following delivery of this ‘re-made’ sofa (wording by supplier seems sufficiently vague as to be unclear as to whether original sofa has been repaired, or replaced with new), the customer contacted the supplier to inform them that they were unhappy with the sofa as delivered to them, and it was agreed that the supplier would commission a report on the sofa condition. 

The supplier’s assessor (from Castelan) visited the customer’s home on 29th June 2023. On 10th July, following discussions with the supplier, the customer was informed that the Castelan assessor reported no faults with the sofa (though noted a gap between the backrests as being normal) – the customer was not supplied with a copy of the assessor’s report, and as a result I’m unable to cross-reference the assessor’s findings with my own.

 

My findings on the overall condition of the sofa, as inspected on Friday 20th December 2024, are below;

Upon arrival at the customer’s home, they escorted me to their lounge, 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 in the enclosed photos 1, 2 & 3, there is a significant, uneven gap between the backrests, mainly towards the top (12-14mm approx., at widest point, in the ‘bowed’ area of the gap), and tapering to no gap towards the bottom of the backrest area. 

This is likely explained as a fault/error made by the supplier during the process of cutting/sewing the leather, or upholstering the backrests (i.e. the manufacturing process) – it would not be explained by ‘settling’ or customer use since supplied to them – otherwise the gap would not be as uneven, as shown. 

In the event of ‘settling’, it’s likely the leather upholstery would spread, narrowing the gap – but even under such a scenario – it would only further suggest that the customer was initially supplied with a faulty product – since any gap between the backrests (such as this) would not be deemed in any fashion to be satisfactory, in terms of appearance.

FAULT 2: 

In photos 4 & 5, it shows the headrests at the corners, where the leather upholstery is joined/seamed. The headrests (at the ‘winged’ sides) appear to be completely asymmetrical. Upon measuring, it was found that the seam on the left hand side headrest is 370mm long, whereas the seam on the right hand side headrest is just 350mm long – both measured from the corner where the backrest meets the headrest, to the corner of the frame where the seam meets the outside back. Whilst a differential of a few millimetres may be considered acceptable, 20mm is not. 

Furthermore, a straight-line measurement from the corner of where the backrest meets the headrest to the join with the outside back confirmed the same size differential between opposing sides (20mm) – 380mm on the left hand side, and 360mm on the right hand side.

The main reason for the marked difference in size, shape and overall appearance of the headrest areas at the ‘winged’ sides – is that the leather upholstery on each is of a completely different size. Perhaps the foam/stuffing contained within these areas is also of a different shape/size – although the headrests would need to be completely disassembled, and the foam/padding measured, to confirm this latter point. 

The difference in shape/size/appearance is highlighted further by the creasing/wrinkling present on the LHS headrest, whereas none is present on the RHS headrest (in a non load-bearing area). 

Overall, the differential here in terms of shape and size would be beyond what might be considered satisfactory, in terms of appearance, due to asymmetry. Collectively, the issue of asymmetry in the headrest areas can only be explained by a fault made during the manufacturing process.

FAULT 3:

Photos 6, 7 8 & 9 show a marked difference in the position of the backrests/headrest areas, whilst both the LHS AND RHS sofa sections are in the ‘fully-upright’/seated position. Measuring from the front of the headrests, the difference in position is around 22-23mm. Each of the headrest areas measures approximately 165mm front to back, meaning that these are of the same size (as would be expected), and the differential as shown from the inside of the headrests cannot be attributed to customer use, or ‘settling’. Measuring from the back, the difference in position of the backrests from the outside back areas is also shown as 22-23mm, matching the asymmetry/positioning from the front. 

This would suggest either; that the wooden frame of the backrests has not been constructed properly (in order that they line up symmetrically), or that there is a problem with the sofa mechanisms themselves, so that these sit in markedly different positions when in the ‘fully-upright’/seated position.

Upon further investigation, photo 10 shows the backrests whilst both the LHS and RHS of the sofa are placed in the ‘fully-reclined’ position. Whilst in this position, it was observed that the backrests lined up perfectly/symmetrically (by comparison to the ‘fully-upright’ positions). 

This would suggest that either one or both of the sofa mechanisms used by the supplier are faulty, or are mis-matched as a pair, and thus are unable to line up correctly in the fully-upright/seated position.

FAULT 4: 

Photos 11 & 12 show the LHS seating area and arm, and an observed gap towards the back of the seating area (between the seat and the arm), which was measured at around 18mm. The gap narrows/tapers from back-to-front of the seat, with the gap disappearing entirely at the seam/join (towards the front area of the seat). 

Photo 13 shows no gap/gapping whatsoever on the opposing RHS seat and arm, thus the LHS and RHS are once again, asymmetrical in this regard.

A gap of a few millimetres may be considered tolerable (whilst still undesirable), but an asymmetrical gap of this size between the seating area and arm, would be far beyond what might be considered satisfactory, in terms of appearance.

It would normally be expected that with customer use or ‘settling’, the leather upholstery would spread (as the foam/padding underneath would over time deflate), narrowing any potential gap, with any remaining gapping being likelier towards the front (rather than the rear of the seating area, as has been observed in this particular case). Thus ‘settling’ is not a valid reason/excuse for this having occurred, in my opinion. 

A gap of around 18mm (as observed/measured) is way beyond what might be considered reasonable (or satisfactory), thus this can only be explained due to a fault/error made by the supplier, during the manufacturing process (either because the upholstery has been poorly tailored/sewn, upholstered incorrectly to the frame, or the foam/padding underneath is otherwise the incorrect size or shape).

FAULT 5: 

Photos 14 & 15 show the differential in the positioning of the seams in the seating area upholstery (where this meets/joins the front of the seat and footrest areas), whilst both sides of the sofa are in the ‘fully-upright’ position. The mis-matched seam positions between the LHS and RHS seating areas were observed and measured at around 25mm, way beyond what might be considered reasonable or tolerable in this regard, in both the fully-upright/seated position, and the reclined position..

Furthermore, photo 16 shows a further differential in the positioning of the seams/joins at the footrest/kickplate, observed and measured at around 15mm. Once again, the asymmetry in this regard is way beyond what might be considered reasonable or tolerable for a professional upholstered furniture supplier.

Photos 17 & 18 show the leather panels which join the seating area leather to the kickplate/footrest areas, measured/observed at 293mm long on the LHS, and 285mm long on the RHS, respectively. Again, this is beyond what may be considered reasonable/tolerable (a few mm here would be perhaps excusable), and partly explains the overall asymmetry of the seating/front of seat/footrest areas.

Collectively, the seating-area leather upholstery issues (poor asymmetry of the seams/joins, and poor overall positioning) have undoubtedly been caused by multiple faults made during the manufacturing process, namely poor sizing/tailoring of the leather whilst measuring/cutting, combined with little to no regard given to the asymmetry of the upholstery between the LHS and RHS of the sofa.

Further notes:

I noticed a significant difference in colour between the leather on the seating area/arms, and that of the leather on the backrests/headrests. Although difficult to see in the photographs, it’s probably best noted from photo 2 (where the backrests meet the seating area). Whilst on its own this may not be considered a fault per se, the colour differential here would suggest that the backrests and seating area/arms were produced from different batches of leather – perhaps the supplier has used parts of the original sofa supplied to the customer, and mixed/matched these with newer parts produced from different batches – which wouldn’t be considered best-practice. 

This could only be properly confirmed by taking the seating area/arms completely apart, to confirm the batch codes on the underside of the upholstery/leather hide in these areas, and compare this/these to the batch code shown from the backrest in photo 19.

 

Conclusion:

As a result of the multitude of issues highlighted, I am in absolutely no doubt that the Willowbrook Manhattan 2-seater rise-and-recliner leather sofa (as supplied to the customer) is NOT of satisfactory quality (as might be expected by a professional upholstered furniture supplier), as a direct result of faults/errors made by the supplier during the manufacturing process, rather than as a result of ‘settling’ (or use of the sofa by the customer), since it was supplied to them.

If – following a supplier’s manager visit to their home – this is indeed their third attempt at resolving/repairing the issues highlighted, then I’m afraid the only conclusion to be reached is that the supplier seems either unable (or unwilling) to repair (or ‘remake’) the sofa, to a standard that might be deemed of satisfactory quality.

Any one of these manufacturing faults observed (1-5) being present would be deemed on their own to consider the sofa (as supplied to the customer) ‘not of satisfactory quality’ as regards overall appearance, and freedom from minor defects. 

Collectively, however – it’s difficult to reach a conclusion other than it appears to suggest an element of wilful negligence on behalf of the supplier to meet their obligations to the customer, as a professional upholstered furniture supplier.

 

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 Company Director