Far too many consumers with legitimate gripes against suppliers give up too easily. Reasons for this vary from ignorance and apathy to exhaustion and sheer despair when a dispute drags on.But there are, thankfully, the others; those consumers who, no matter what is thrown at them, refuse to back down. Retired geography professor and TV weatherman John Earle is one of them. He proved that it's never too tiring - or too late - to get a supplier to do the right thing.Last week, more than six months after he started his battle with national furniture retailer Fielli, he was refunded almost R20000 - for a lounge suite he'd used for seven years.story_article_left1Nobody's saying it was easy. He fought alone for months before coming to me. And it took me several more months to secure the payback. A long and bitter ordeal for a seemingly straightforward claim.In 2008, Earle responded to a Fielli newspaper advert for an R18995 "full leather" lounge suite. He was assured by the salesperson in the Cape Town showroom that the suite was genuine leather and was on a half-price sale.Fast forward to August last year, when it became clear to Earle that the material used to make his white "leather" suite was not leather at all. The surface of the suite had started to flake off, revealing a woven fabric base.Earle, who left for an extended overseas stay soon afterwards, wrote to Fielli in February on his return, accusing the retailer of misrepresentation and demanding a refund, with interest. He attached his invoice and photographs of the peeling suite.The response? A standard customer care e-mail saying the suite was out of its one-year guarantee on workmanship. Earle was advised to have the suite reupholstered at his own cost.Fielli had completely missed the point. Earle reiterated his claim that he had been sold a non-leather couch advertised as full leather, which was tantamount to fraud, and threatened legal action and media exposure if the complaint was not resolved.Again, Fielli dismissed his claim, going so far as to recommend a service provider who could repair his suite.A frustrated Earle wrote several more letters to Fielli, and included in them a copy of the original newspaper advert and HelloPeter entries from Fielli customers complaining about fake leather suites.block_quotes_start The supplier was removed from our client's vendor list and no further purchases were made block_quotes_endWhen these were ignored, Earle came to me. I approached Fielli for the first time in May, asking it to explain why it had sold non-leather suites as leather, and for failing to compensate Earle.Fielli's customer service department responded to Earle and me, offering a credit note covering the cost of the suite. I rejected the offer on Earle's behalf, arguing that a cash refund, not a credit note, was warranted, due to misrepresentation. Earle, who was abroad at the time, followed up with another rejection on his return in July.When Fielli did not budge, I gave it one last chance to resolve the issue. A week later, Earle received an offer from Fielli's attorney, Ayoob Kaka, again for a credit note. It was rejected.A day later, Fielli's attorneys agreed to a cash refund and repayment of the R450 delivery charge. It declined to include any interest, due to Earle having had use of the suite since 2008.Before the suite was collected, I asked a Cape Town leather expert, Hugo Zuanni, to visit Earle at his Fish Hoek home to inspect it. He confirmed to me that the suite was not genuine leather, but covered in synthetic, man-made material.story_article_right2Could Kaka explain this? Seems not.Because the owner of Fielli had died in February, a "fully corroborated" explanation was not possible, he told me."We have tried to piece together an explanation from the people presently employed at Fielli," said Kaka.The supplier of the imported suite, he said, had sold it to Fielli as leather and the retailer had sold it on to customers on that basis."After complaints started coming in the matter was taken up with the supplier. However, the outcome thereof is not known," said Kaka. "The supplier was, however, removed from our client's vendor list and no further purchases were made."He said a standing instruction had been issued by Fielli's late owner - and remained in place - that on complaint, the product should be taken back, and a refund given, or applicable discount offered if customers were willing to keep the product.The use of the furniture was taken into account in negotiating a refund or discount.But why then, if there was a "standing instruction" to assist affected customers, did Earle have to wait so long for resolution?Kaka suggested the delay was caused by Earle's initial demand for interest on the refund, the fact that a "full investigation" had to be undertaken, and that the suite had been bought so long ago.Does Fielli's compensation to Earle now mean other affected consumers (Kaka doesn't know how many) will be able to lodge speedy and successful claims?"Each complaint will be dealt with on merit and, where applicable, a full refund will be made," said Kaka.Spread the word.sub_head_start Contact Megan Power sub_head_endE-mail: consumer@sundaytimes.co.zaFollow Megan on Twitter: @Power_ReportTune in to PowerFM 98.7's 'Power Breakfast' (DStv audio channel 889) at 8.50am on Monday to hear more from MeganPlease note: Other than in exceptional circumstances, readers sending me complaints must be willing to be identified and photographed...