Mr Daniels vs W&T Nettleton Wakefield



Although Mr Daniels won his claim due to our report and he felt the need to leave a negative defamatory review against my business because the retailer would not refund the inspection fee.

This page is under construction



Thank you for your feedback, Mr. Daniels. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify a few points.

The review is a little misleading, so allow me to correct you, Mr. Daniels.
Mr. Daniels purchased a three-seater sofa from Nettletons of Wakefield in June 2024 for £1,148.00. After eight months, the sofa developed dark patches on the armrests and headrests. Mr. Daniels made a claim to Nettletons of Wakefield, who were unwilling to admit any liability. Mr. Daniels then employed ourselves (Barrdale Furniture Inspections) to assess the sofa. Callum Brooks actually assessed and typed the report regarding the issues with the sofa (not Dale Brooks, as stated in your review).

Upon the visit and inspection, Mr. Daniels repeatedly referred to the sofa as having fake leather and being a refurbished sofa. Mr. Daniels would not produce the original receipt that was requested by us. Callum does accept he made a typo error within his notes. The typo error was referring to the sofa as fake leather.

Mr. Daniels was happy with the report as everything he had stated was typed. In fact, he was so happy that he sent Nettletons a letter on the 8th July 2025 boasting that the report had been carried out by myself (Dale Brooks) and that we were accredited members of the British Furniture Manufacturers Association and FIRA. He went on to demand that the inspection report fee be refunded by Nettletons as a matter of courtesy.

Paul Griffin, the store director, replied on 14th July 2025 to Mr. Daniels and pointed out the typo error. However, he made an offer to him of £999.00 based on faults described within the report, but they would not refund the inspection fee demanded by Mr. Daniels.

We received a call from Mr. Daniels asking for our help once again. I called and spoke to Mr. Daniels on the 23rd July at 8:53 a.m. I asked for a copy of the original invoice that stated the sofa was a refurbished sofa in order to help. His reply was, “I will forward after my breakfast.”

At 11:31 a.m. on the 23rd July, I emailed him again requesting the sofa receipt that he had agreed to forward.

At 12:59 p.m. on 23rd July 2025, he forwarded a copy of the receipt and then confirmed by email:
“Enclosed is the receipt for the settee. I have also to let you know that it is not a refurbished settee; it was the store that was being refurbished and not the settee. The settee definitely was not refurbished, so my complaint still stands regarding this matter. As for a typing error for the leather, this was made four times in the report. I’m sure it should have been seen it was not the sofa that was refurbished but the store.”

Another piece of misleading information from him.

Mr. Daniels would not discuss why he repeatedly told Callum that the sofa was fake leather or why he stated that it was refurbished, or why he would not allow us to have a copy of the original invoice.

On the 23rd July at 1:09 p.m., I sent an email to him:
“Many thanks for the confirmation. I have tried to call you at 1:04 p.m. and 1:08 p.m.; there was no answer. I would be grateful if you would return my call.”

Mr. Daniels would not discuss why he repeatedly told Callum that the sofa was fake leather or why he stated that it was refurbished, or why he would not allow us to have a copy of the original invoice.

On the 23rd July 2025 at 4:36 p.m., Mr. Daniels sent an email:
“Hello Mr. Brooks,
I have been advised to communicate through email and not through the phone, so if you could let me know through email what the phone call was about.
Many thanks.”

On the 23rd July 2025 at 4:24 p.m., we sent him the email:
“Good afternoon Mr. Daniels,
Understood.
Without Prejudice

As members of the FSB, we have free legal advice and have contacted Markel Law LLP today to discuss your complaint with ourselves.

I understand from our conversation this morning with yourself that Nettletons contracted their own independent inspector that initially rejected your claim.

You subsequently contacted ourselves to assess and report on your sofa. The report was produced by my son Callum Brooks, and I accept that he made an unfortunate typo error within the report.

The report has resulted in you getting an offer of a 70% refund of the original cost or £999.00 towards a replacement, and your Stain Guard will be transferred. I advised you this morning that Nettletons have been very reasonable with you. Your reply was that they are not paying for the inspection and therefore you are now out of pocket.

I understand you are disgruntled with the offer and want a full refund or to pursue a claim in the County Court.

I am happy to amend the inspection report free of charge in order for you to pursue your claim but will not be offering a refund to you as requested.

Dale Brooks