Warranty Rejected Despite Visible Foam Deformation
I am submitting a complaint regarding our JÄTTEBO sofa set, consisting of two 1.5‑seater sofas, one single‑seater sofa and one chaise longue, all with storage, purchased from IKEA Ankara approximately 1.5–2 years ago. One of the main reasons we chose this product was IKEA’s reputation for quality and the stated 10‑year guarantee. Despite the relatively short period of use, the foam inside the backrest sections has shifted and deformed and is visibly out of position, which can clearly be seen in the video we provided. Due to this situation, we requested that the affected parts be replaced under warranty. A service request was opened and the inspection was carried out under Service Form No. 127-026696 on 13 September 2026. Around seven days after the inspection, we were informed that no problem was found with the armrest sections. We do not agree with this assessment and have requested a new inspection. In addition, when the parts were handed over, I repeatedly asked the IKEA employee to correctly record the model/type and quantities of the parts on the acceptance document. This was not done properly, although I was assured that it would not cause any problem. This has now become an additional concern for us, especially in case the matter proceeds to a formal consumer dispute. In our view, the visible deformation and displacement of the foam after only 1.5–2 years of use cannot reasonably be considered acceptable for a product sold with a 10‑year guarantee. We purchased this sofa set in reliance on IKEA’s stated product quality and guarantee, but so far no satisfactory action has been taken. We request that IKEA carry out a new and thorough technical assessment, correct the service records where necessary, and replace the affected parts under the applicable guarantee. If IKEA maintains its current decision, we also request a written, detailed technical explanation. We expect IKEA to honour its guarantee commitment, and if the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, we reserve our rights to pursue all available consumer protection remedies.
The process unfolded as follows: 1) I filed a replacement request due to an issue with the chair. 2) After 7 days they responded negatively and rejected my request. I insisted and asked for a re‑examination. 3) On the evening of the day they rejected my request, I lodged complaints everywhere. In addition to the Şikayetvar site, I also sent a form to the IKEA headquarters. 4) Within 1–2 days they gave a positive response. 5) In the following period I experienced minor hiccups and difficulties, but since the problem was clearly manufacturer‑related and I had gotten rid of it, I did not dwell on it and completed the replacement. Is my problem solved now? Yes. Did I have to endure stress and enter an appeal process because I did not accept IKEA’s initial assessment? Yes. Did this process, where I had to prove myself even in an obvious case, shake my trust in the brand, its products, and its services? Yes. If I hadn’t had videos and documents, if I hadn’t raised my voice on platforms like Şikayetvar, if it had been left solely to IKEA’s initiative—would my problem have been solved? No. The decision is yours. Such approaches are trust‑breaking. They cause a reputation built with long effort and high cost to be lost over petty calculations. What IKEA made me go through throughout the process showed how problematic their after‑sales support is. My problem was resolved, but it was neither easy nor stress‑free.
