MattressNextDay[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] - Terrible customer service

isplumm

Tim_Deegan wrote: »

I know exactly where you are coming from, but if only it was that simple. It isn't just a case of someone wanting to slag off X retailer. What is really the problem is that there are so many arm chair experts in forums. And the worst thing is when you actually sell to someone who thinks they are an expert, when in fact they have virtually no knowledge at all. It doesn't matter how much you try to ben over backwards for them, they just think they know better than you, and that you are the enemy.

As for being agressive... maybe I am towards people who are only here to either discredit me for whatever reason. Most of the time I will ignore them. However when they are telling other people lies, then I'm afraid you do have to respond occasionally. It doesn't help when you get people who think they are legal experts making stupid remarks either.

Tim ...

Could you explain why you think that mattresses are not included in the DSR regulations or when they are - maybe point to the specific point in the DSR that says that?

This is NOT a dig at you ... I am keen to understand more for my own knowledge.

Thanks Mark

Orrin

isplumm wrote: »

Could you explain why you think that mattresses are not included in the DSR regulations or when they are - maybe point to the specific point in the DSR that says that?

AFAIK there is no specific exception for mattresses in the DSR. I expect Tim is going by the fact that virtually every mattress retailer says they won't accept returns for hygiene reasons.

Tim_Deegan

isplumm wrote: »

Tim ...

Could you explain why you think that mattresses are not included in the DSR regulations or when they are - maybe point to the specific point in the DSR that says that?

This is NOT a dig at you ... I am keen to understand more for my own knowledge.

Thanks Mark

They are covered by DSR's as long as they haven't been unpacked. There are a number of items that come under exceptions for various reasons. These items would include underwear, swimwear, jewellry for piercings, and various other items, once the hygiene seal has been removed. This is due to possible contamination with body fluids, which could possibly contain bacteria which could cause infections. It is well know throughout the bed industry that this also includes mattresses for the reasons stated above. One thing you need to understand is that DSR's don't actually list specifics, because there is the possibility that other items could be added at any time.

Tim_Deegan

Orrin wrote: »

AFAIK there is no specific exception for mattresses in the DSR. I expect Tim is going by the fact that virtually every mattress retailer says they won't accept returns for hygiene reasons.

One thing you need to understand is that DSR's don't actually list specifics, because there is the possibility that other items could be added at any time.

Orrin

Tim_Deegan wrote: »

They are covered by DSR's as long as they haven't been unpacked. There are a number of items that come under exceptions for various reasons. These items would include underwear, swimwear, jewellry for piercings, and various other items, once the hygiene seal has been removed. This is due to possible contamination with body fluids, which could possibly contain bacteria which could cause infections. It is well know throughout the bed industry that this also includes mattresses for the reasons stated above. One thing you need to understand is that DSR's don't actually list specifics, because there is the possibility that other items could be added at any time.

This is incorrect.

The OFT guidance on DSRs is here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Sections 3.42 to 3.44 contain information about goods with hygiene concerns that would be relevant to mattresses.

Tim_Deegan

Orrin wrote: »

This is incorrect.

The OFT guidance on DSRs is here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Sections 3.42 to 3.44 contain information about goods with hygiene concerns that would be relevant to mattresses.

Please stop being an armchair solicitor, and trying to convince people that the whole of the bed industry is wrong (with all their lawyers), but you are right.

As I said DSR's are not specific. Also we are not just talking about clean or dirty. We are talking about possible disease.

Also the link you inclosed is guidance, which is what it says, a guide, and not the actual law for specific products.

Orrin

Tim_Deegan wrote: »

Please stop being an armchair solicitor, and trying to convince people that the whole of the bed industry is wrong (with all their lawyers), but you are right.

Do you have anything to support your position other than ad hominem and appeal to authority?

Tim_Deegan wrote: »

Also the link you inclosed is guidance, which is what it says, a guide, and not the actual law for specific products.

I'll take the OFT's guidance over yours, but if you prefer the actual legislation, it's here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/contents/made

No mention of mattresses, underwear, hygiene or disease.

allstar4eva

Tim_Deegan wrote: »

...As I said DSR's are not specific. Also we are not just talking about clean or dirty. We are talking about possible disease....
.

So when a mattress is returned under a 100% satisfaction guarantee what discount is it re-sold at to reflect this possibility of disease? I would imagine a very hefty one. It does make me wonder how a retailer turns a profit whilst offering such a generous guarantee...

Pinkypants

3.42 We are conscious of concerns about reselling items which may raise
concerns about hygiene. However, the DSRs do not link cancellation
rights with a supplier’s ability to resell items as new.

3.43 With items that fall outside the exceptions, cancellation rights will
apply, but the consumer has a duty under the DSRs to take
reasonable care of the goods throughout the cancellation period.

3.44 What constitutes reasonable care depends on a number of things. It
may be reasonable for the supplier to stipulate what they consider to
be reasonable care, such as not removing hygiene seals on garments
or only trying out shoes indoors. But these stipulations cannot restrict
a consumer’s reasonable opportunity to inspect and assess the
product. Consumers have the right to cancel even if they fail to take
reasonable care of the goods; however the DSRs do give suppliers a
right of action against consumers for breach of the statutory duty to

take reasonable care.

You can inspect the mattress through the bag, as they are usually clear.

You can even lie on the mattress in the bag, although I admit it won't quite feel the same.

No one can argue that they needed to make sure it wasn't damaged, because if your where checking it for damage that would imply that you wanted to keep it in the 1st place.

I can not see anything under those guidelines that suggests mattresses ARE included.

It's all down to interpretation, like most things in law.

The_Pedant

To pick out a couple of point from the guidance (just thought I'm emphasise that point) and the act itself.

3.44
What constitutes reasonable care depends on a number of things. It may be reasonable for the supplier to stipulate what they consider to be reasonable care, such as not removing hygiene seals on garments

And from the act:-

13.—(1) Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the consumer will not have the right to cancel the contract by giving notice of cancellation pursuant to regulation 10 in respect of contracts—
(c)
for the supply of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised or which by reason of their nature cannot be returned or are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly;

Personally, I would not necessarily want a mattress that someone else had slept on for a couple of days unless it was still sealed, would you? It is clearly stated that the list is not exhaustive (if anyone points out they don't mention mattresses, feel free to write a full list of what is excluded and we'll all review it), therefore I'm happy that the retailer may be entitled to impose restrictions in some cases.

So unless someone can direct me at case law that clarifies the situation either way, I'm happy with the wording in both cases (even if it may limit the ability to return)