Mattress Return Distance Selling Regulations

allstar4eva

dmg24 wrote: »

Thanks for the update allstar4eva - are you pursuing the delivery charge through small claims, or writing off the situation as a bad experience never to be repeated?

To be honest I was just so relieved to get my money back I was not going to bother but I may still attempt to be refunded this charge too. I have also had a lot going on otherwise so this hasn't been a priority.

I see Tim is still posting about how much he loves to help people. Follow his advice and it leads to his company - clever marketing.

sunshinetours

dmg24 wrote: »

The OP asked for advice about his statutory rights, not his thought process in whether to cancel his order. In this respect, the retailer was in breach of the DSRs. Anyone who thinks they are above the law cannot be described as offering pretty good customer service!

You are right - we should all stick to the facts and not post subjective judgements on things we don't know. Difficult to do that though isn't it?

dmg24

sunshinetours wrote: »

You are right - we should all stick to the facts and not post subjective judgements on things we don't know. Difficult to do that though isn't it?

Absolutely, we all give our opinions when they are not asked for, but you have chosen to ignore my main point - you cannot describe something as good customer service when the retailer is breaking the law!

dmg24

allstar4eva wrote: »

To be honest I was just so relieved to get my money back I was not going to bother but I may still attempt to be refunded this charge too. I have also had a lot going on otherwise so this hasn't been a priority.

I see Tim is still posting about how much he loves to help people. Follow his advice and it leads to his company - clever marketing.

I used to take retailers to small claims whenever they were in breach (my smallest claim being less than £5!), but now do not have time. I look at it that through leaving negative feedback on forums and through word of mouth the retailer will have lost far more than me, so that is sufficient remedy.

fthl

I am also impressed you can decide something is unsuitable and now apparently also of questionable quality without even unwrapping it.[/QUOTE

Me too!

Based on the tone of the posts here, I suspect that we don't even have half of the story. I don't think his stance was too unreasonable all thinhs considered.

sunshinetours

dmg24 wrote: »

Absolutely, we all give our opinions when they are not asked for, but you have chosen to ignore my main point - you cannot describe something as good customer service when the retailer is breaking the law!

I did chose to ignore that bit but as you have now quoted that you have taken someone to court for £5, I can see that my view that good customer service includes trying to compromise with all customers, even unreasonable ones, probably holds no sway.

Thanks to forums with "experts" a-plenty there are lots of people know all their rights apparently but don't wish to accept any personal responsibilty for their own actions. The real world usually involves compromises at every stage of life

Not suggesting that is the case here of course

allstar4eva

fthl wrote: »

I am also impressed you can decide something is unsuitable and now apparently also of questionable quality without even unwrapping it.[/QUOTE

Me too!

Based on the tone of the posts here, I suspect that we don't even have half of the story. I don't think his stance was too unreasonable all thinhs considered.

Is this the tone you are referring to?

Now it may be that I am very fussy about these things as I have already mentioned that many others seem to be happy with his products however there are also some complaints too. I accept that maybe some part of the blame lies with me and although I do not understand what I did wrong maybe another pair of eyes might see differently. For anyone interested I would be happy to forward you the email trial of all 100+ emails!!!

If you want to see both sides of the story I will send you the email trail to review then cast an informed opinion.

If you can't be bothered to read them then would you mind not suggesting that I am witholding facts?

dmg24

sunshinetours wrote: »

I did chose to ignore that bit but as you have now quoted that you have taken someone to court for £5, I can see that my view that good customer service includes trying to compromise with all customers, even unreasonable ones, probably holds no sway.

Thanks to forums with "experts" a-plenty there are lots of people know all their rights apparently but don't wish to accept any personal responsibilty for their own actions. The real world usually involves compromises at every stage of life

Not suggesting that is the case here of course

Should someone not be encouraged to enforce their rights? If every customer loses £5 due to the retailer's breach, and the retailer does the same to (for instance) 100 customers a week, that is over £25,000 a year. Doesn't seem nearly as trivial when you look at the bigger picture.

If you don't like the law, then you should work to change it, not criticise those who chose to work with it.

fthl

Happy to look at the emails if you'd like. PM me and I'll reply with an email add, but only do so if you are happy for me to report back here for the sake of completeness. If you even vaguely accept that 'some of the blame lies with me' I suspect you already know what these emails will show. The fact that there are a hundred or so also gives an indication. This isn't normal.

The tone I was referring to was the general timbre of your posts.

As for what you did wrong, I suspect it was simply being stubborn, emotional and righteous, which then caused the retailer to also become emotional, stubborn and righteous. Both of you reflected off the other, became entrenched and then this caused the problem. I'm not saying that his t's and c's don't need work, I think they do, but if someone is being unreasonable and odd (whether this is true or just perceived) then this can exacerbate a problem and positions are dug in.

I see no reason why the eventual solution was not arrived at quite quickly.

sunshinetours

dmg24 wrote: »

Should someone not be encouraged to enforce their rights? If every customer loses £5 due to the retailer's breach, and the retailer does the same to (for instance) 100 customers a week, that is over £25,000 a year. Doesn't seem nearly as trivial when you look at the bigger picture.

If you don't like the law, then you should work to change it, not criticise those who chose to work with it.

Nothing to do with what I like, its how I put a value my free time. That is why we are all different I guess.

I deliberately chose not to work in law thanks