‘We love it' Brits are raving about a rattan garden sofa that's on sale for huge £370 cheaper – but there are 2 catches
SUMMER is right around the corner which means millions of Brits are racing to get their gardens ready for the sunny season.
And if you're yet to find a fabulous rattan sofa on the cheap, you've come to the right place - as thrifty shoppers have found the ultimate bargain.
2
According to money-smart Facebook users, the home goods store Studio currently has a mega sale going on - and you can pick up a gorgeous garden sofa with an epic discount.
Originally setting you back an eye-watering £499.99, the Bali Rattan Corner Sofa Set is now going for just £129.99, saving you a fortune.
The sofa, which comes in black, has an L shape that gives you the option to spread out and relax in the summer weather.
The set also comes with an ottoman that can be used as extra seating if you have any unexpected guests - it really doesn't get much better than this.
Studio's version comes in hundreds of pounds cheaper than similar sets at B&Q and The Range, which retail for up to £500.
Meanwhile, Aldi's brand new sofa is currently going for £199.99.
With such an epic price, it comes as no wonder that Brits have been raving about this gorgeous sofa and the quality on the popular
Extreme Couponing and Bargains UK group.
Someone else was also singing praises, writing: ''I got around 8 years out of mine. Fantastic value for the money.''
''I got one delivered last Tuesday & we love it!'' a third chimed in.
The £14.50 Wickes buy people are swearing by to get rid of weeds on their driveway for GOOD
However, whilst the cut-price sofa is sure to be a hit amongst your guests this summer, there seem to be two catches - a hefty £49.99 delivery fee, as well as unclear instructions how to assemble it.
Many horrified shoppers noted that it took them ages to finally be able to enjoy the sofa, with one woman allegedly spending three hours with her pal.
''I bought this and it took me and my friend 3 hours to build,'' the Facebook user warned.
Garden features that add the most value to a house
A well-kept garden can add anywhere between 5-20% to the value of a property.
Sellhousefast.uk carried out a study and consulted 36 estate agents, garden designers and property professionals from across the UK.
And the experts revealed the garden feature which adds the most value to a property is a shed.
Shed - 82%
Patio or paving - 76%
Secure fencing, walls or gates - 72%
Outdoor lighting - 66%
Sturdy decking - 62%
Water features eg. fountain or pond - 58%
Modern garden furniture - 54%
Artificial lawn/grass - 40%
Another was just as baffled, writing: ''How on earth did you put this together, the instructions are ridiculous.''
''I bought this last year for £99 had to get someone to put it together was so confusing,'' a third customer wrote.
Whatever you're buying, it's always a good idea to shop around to find the best deal.
You can compare prices on websites like Google shopping, which is a tool that lets users search for and compare prices for products across the web.
Idealo is another website that lets you compare prices between retailers.
All shoppers need to do is search for the item they need and the website will rank them from the cheapest to the most expensive one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Northumbrian Water to pay out £15.7m after sewage and water network failings
Northumbrian Water has agreed to pay out £15.7 million after failures in the maintenance and operations of its sewage and water network. Water sector regulator Ofwat said the firm will pay out the 'enforcement package' to local environmental causes and improvements to the region's water infrastructure. Bosses at the watchdog said its failures led to 'excessive spills from storm overflows'. It comes a week after Thames Water was fined a record £122.7 million after it was found to have broken rules over sewage treatment and paying out dividends. Ofwat said the enforcement package is 'greater than the penalty which would otherwise have been imposed' if it had fined the business. It also said the package agreed with the company means it will be spent on local improvements for customers, rather than being directed to the Treasury's consolidated fund. Northumbrian Water chief executive Heidi Mottram said: 'We agree with Ofwat's announcement that the financial settlement will be directed into speeding up our storm overflow reduction plans and in meaningful local initiatives via our Branch Out fund. 'This investment, which will come entirely from Northumbrian Water shareholders and will not be paid for by customers' bills, will enhance our ongoing efforts to support local communities and protect and improve the natural environment here in the North East.' Lynn Parker, senior director for enforcement at Ofwat, said: 'Our investigation has found failures in how Northumbrian Water has operated and maintained some of its sewage works and networks, which has resulted in excessive spills from storm overflows. 'The contraventions we have found at some of their sites will have had an impact on the local environment and customers and it is unacceptable. 'We are pleased that Northumbrian Water has agreed this package. 'We now expect them to move at pace to correct the issues our investigation has identified. 'We hope more companies will follow this example so that the public sees transformative change across the sector.' Northumbrian Water said in December last year that it plans to increase its average water bills by around 21% over the next five years.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Would a £15bn investment in public transport ‘level up' the red-wall areas?
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has announced a £15bn investment in public transport projects in the English regions. Albeit her commitment to restore the pensioners' winter fuel payment (in whole or part is not known) has grabbed much of the attention, these plans for enhanced light rail, bus and tram links will no doubt make an impact. She said: 'We know the potential that exists in all of our towns and cities … I can tell you today that we will be making the biggest ever investment by a British government in transport links within our city regions, and their surrounding towns; £15.6bn in transport funding settlements, to be delivered by our regional mayors – more than doubling real-terms spending on city-region connectivity.' But it is not quite what it seems to be. Is this new money? Not exactly. Much of it is effectively a reannouncement of the schemes unveiled by Rishi Sunak at the Conservative Party conference in October 2023. That was when he announced, to no one's surprise but still widespread disappointment, that the HS2 high speed rail link between Birmingham, Manchester and beyond was being cancelled, but the funds would be redistributed to a wide variety of smaller transport schemes (some of which, embarrassingly, were to repair roads in the South). At that time, the figure of £13.8bn was allocated to the 'City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements 2' – ie public transport improvements controlled by the various elected mayors in Greater Manchester, Teeside, West Yorkshire and so on. Reeves says that these were never properly funded by the previous government, and she put them on hold when she came to power last year. Now they have been defrosted, topped up and presented as Labour achievements. They may turn out to be, but it will take years for them to come to fruition – as with earlier announcements focused on the South, such as the Heathrow expansion. And, just for the record, there's no prospect of the HS2 Northern extension, nor the potentially revolutionary (for growth) Northern Powerhouse east-west fast rail link between Liverpool and Hull via Manchester and Leeds ('HS3'). So, is it good for growth? In principle, yes, but building new tramways, say, doesn't necessarily leverage commensurate private investment or create new jobs. One of the more consequential of Reeves's announcements was that she's reviewing the criteria the Treasury uses to approve large-scale infrastructure projects, contained in the so-called Green Book. She wants civil servants to recognise the benefits of investment as well as the cost. This is fine in principle, provided the government's economists are not pushed into politically useful wishful thinking about regeneration projects that turn into white elephants. History is full of such prestigious (but in the end futile) dreams. As with the 'raid on pensions' – where funds are to be directed to invest in certain UK assets – the net effect of any misallocation of resources would be to reduce productivity rather than boost it. Is it good for Labour? Politically, the point is that it shows Labour cares about what used to be called 'levelling up' in 'left behind' areas, especially in Labour's red-wall areas previously taken by Boris Johnson and now vulnerable to challenge from Nigel Farage and Reform UK. The recent local elections showed just how deep and widespread the discontent can be. (Lisa Nandy, cabinet minister and MP for Wigan, has been warning that social pressures are so intense it could mean northern England could 'go up in flames'). Labour MPs representing marginal seats in the North West and the Midlands will thus have at least something to show for their efforts – or at least the prospect of improvement. However, it will be some time before any tangible improvements will be felt. And the irony? If Labour loses the next election, all the dividends of its investment in transport, housing and green power will be enjoyed by the Conservatives or, more remotely, Reform UK.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Enough is enough. Let Thames Water go bust
There comes a point in every corporate disaster when enough is enough and the plug has to be pulled. One such is Thames Water, which has sailed rudderless from one mishap to the next for over a decade now, with still no resolution in sight. Surprise, the latest hope of salvation – £4bn of new equity from the US private equity outfit KKR – has failed as comprehensively as all previous attempts to give Thames a viable future. After months of due diligence, KKR has concluded what must have been obvious all along – that the political and regulatory risks around Thames Water are just too big to be worth the candle. Water companies have in recent times managed the near-impossible feat of usurping the position once occupied by banks as the most hated corporate sector in the land. Campaigners such as the former Undertones singer Feargal Sharkey have raised the profile of the industry to the point where there is nowhere left to hide. Rising bills in combination with deteriorating water standards have made Thames and its nine, fellow privatised water companies into symbols of wider national failure. If KKR needed any further persuading of the folly of involvement with this nightmare of a company, the lambasting Thames recently received in the House of Commons for sewage spills and retention bonuses must surely have been the final straw. There's a price for everything, it is sometimes said, but maybe not with this industry, where to be an investor or lender is to be seen as the unacceptable face of capitalism in modern form. Good luck to the other bidders said to be circling Thames now that KKR is out of the way. They will no doubt eventually come to the same conclusion. In its current incarnation, Thames is holed below the water line. It's hard to see why anyone would want to take the tiller. The clamour for retribution is now so great as to render almost any form of investment completely unviable. I was an enthusiastic supporter of water privatisation when it was first mooted in the late 1980s. Back then, water standards were even worse than they are today. You couldn't even trust the drinking water, which would regularly fail European standards, let alone Britain's beaches or rivers. As publicly owned utilities, water companies had to take their place in the pecking order of public spending priorities, and it was inevitably a lowly one. Political pressure to keep bills low further starved the industry of the resources needed to meet increasingly demanding standards. For ministers, privatisation served a double purpose; not only did it promise much needed private capital for infrastructure renewal, it also meant that they would finally be shot of a seemingly constant source of political complaint. So desperate was the Treasury to get the water companies off the books that they were flogged off pretty much debt free, and in some cases with overflowing 'green dowries' to make them more attractive to investors. Sadly, it has not worked out well. The few water companies that have remained publicly listed enterprises haven't fared too badly, but the ones subsequently bought by private equity – including Thames Water – have been pillaged to destruction. Stripped down to the last lightbulb by rapacious financiers, they increasingly cut corners and are today in all kinds of trouble. What goes around comes around, and the private ownership that was once seen as the solution is now condemned as a major part of the problem. Attempts to find a future for Thames Water within the current framework of debt and equity ownership have gone about as far as they reasonably can. Any further machinations merely prolong the agony, and are really only about salvaging at least something from the wreckage for current senior creditors, as well as lining the pockets of a veritable army of advisers and lawyers. Most of them deserve little sympathy, even if the original sin at Thames was committed by a generation of owners who have long since disappeared with their bags of swag. Many will take positive pleasure in the likes of Elliott Management, a vulture capital fund that specialises in buying up distress debt and squeezing it dry, losing their shirts. Their only motivation is value extraction. They cannot be allowed to dictate the future course of bills and regulatory obligations. I no longer buy the argument that putting Thames into 'special administration' – a form of insolvency procedure intended to ensure protection for public services – would send a bad message at a time when the Government is looking to raise hundreds of billions of pounds from private investors for Britain's energy transition. Rather the reverse; actually, it would say yes, we want private investment, but on fair terms that don't seek to rip the heart out of essential public services. Since I cannot put it any better myself, let me just repeat what a reader said on a rival news site: being open for business does not mean being open to exploitation. The bottom line is that in order to properly meet its social and environmental obligations, Thames needs to be made largely loan-free, wiping out the near £20bn of debt that it is currently struggling to service. The arguments in favour of this approach are now so overwhelming that it is hard to see why ministers are still hesitating. From a political perspective, it would be extremely popular, which is why Nigel Farage's Reform UK has latched onto it as gainful, populist fodder. That doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do; often, the easy, popular course turns out to be the wrong one. But what are the alternatives? The 30pc haircut to more junior debt holders currently under discussion is very unlikely to be sufficient. Despite initial fears that it would cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg, the most recent example of special administration – Bulb Energy – has worked out reasonably well. Bulb was one of a number of fly-by-night retail energy suppliers that found its relatively generous fixed rate deals rendered hopelessly uneconomic by soaring wholesale prices. When first put into special administration, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that based on energy prices at the time, the bailout could cost the taxpayer an eye-watering £6.5bn. But that tally has steadily eroded, and with further recoveries from Octopus Energy – which acquired Bulb's customer base – the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is expected to be negligible. Nationalisation without compensation is always a process fraught with legal difficulties. Historically, it has tied presiding governments up in knots for years afterwards. But how else is the never-ending saga of Thames Water ever to be resolved? Once freed from the ball and chain of excessive debt, Thames Water could easily be sold back to investors, and with requisite reform to regulation, could then perfectly adequately serve all three interest groups: investors, customers and environmentalists. Time to bite the bullet.
