Brampton Furniture Store Convicted of Unfair Practices: Justice Served in Long-Awaited Consumer Victory

Brampton Furniture Store Convicted of Unfair Practices: Justice Served in Long-Awaited Consumer Victory. Reports: Brampton Furniture Store Convicted of Unfair Business Conduct. Nearly half a decade earlier, Goutham Nagolu and his wife were attracted to a dining set advertised on Facebook Marketplace and visited Maple Furniture in Brampton to see it. They decided to purchase the display model at the Torbram Road location, which included a table and six chairs adorned with brass lion motifs on the chair-backs and brass rivets. However, upon delivery, Nagolu discovered the chairs featured lower-quality stainless steel instead of brass, and one table leg was two inches shorter than the rest. He was promised replacements, but then communication ceased.

Nagolu, a real estate agent, recounts,

“There was no effort to reach out to me.”

After numerous unreturned calls, emails, and a confrontational visit to the store, they sought advice from Peel Regional Police, who suggested filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Nagolu expressed, “Everyone says nothing can be done, but we took our chances.” Eventually, Maple Furniture and its proprietors, Kulwinder Singh and Harminder Singh Sandhu, were found guilty on eight counts by the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery.

Justice of the Peace Richard Quon emphasized in his verdict, “For retail businesses to foster goodwill, they must satisfy their customers. This typically involves delivering the correct furniture as ordered and replacing incorrect items promptly.”

The article continues, highlighting the store’s failure to do so.

Brampton Furniture Store Convicted of Unfair Practices: Justice Served in Long-Awaited Consumer Victory

Another customer, Dahlia White, also reported issues with Maple Furniture. On January 1, 2017, she bought a $700 bed for her son and a $2,800 bedroom set for herself on lay-away. Justice Quon pointed out, “Customers expect delivery upon full payment as agreed.”

Yet, this didn’t occur. After paying in full for her son’s bed and taking time off for its delivery, it never arrived. She was informed she needed to pay more towards her own set. Despite doing so and setting another delivery date, her son’s bed still didn’t arrive. Told to pay even more, White did, but delivery did not happen. She then tried to contact management but got no response to her email.

White eventually filed a complaint with Consumer Services after an unproductive offer from Maple Furniture. In January 2020, frustrated, she cancelled both orders and sought a refund, which she never received.

Following an investigation, the ministry charged Maple Furniture under the Consumer Protection Act. During the trial, White and Nagolu testified, but no representative from Maple Furniture appeared.

A store salesman, “Gary,” claimed ignorance of the court case. The justice of the peace declared the company and its owners guilty of unfair practices and not refunding White’s $1,100. Per the ministry website, they face fines up to $50,000 individually and $250,000 corporately.

Nagolu welcomed the decision, stating, “Finally. It’s definitely good news.

Related Posts:

Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice(Opens in a new browser tab)

Brampton Coffee ‘n’ Code(Opens in a new browser tab)

How to Define surcharge by country with WooCommerce(Opens in a new browser tab)

Author Event: Life and the Law with Former Chief Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin(Opens in a new browser tab)

Learn more about JavaScript Variables(Opens in a new browser tab)