Dreams or Section 75

Pinkypants

If your claiming the mattress isn't fit for purpose after 6 months old, then it's down to the individual to prove that the product had/has an inherent fault with it.

How much has the mattress dipped? Put a straight edge along the top of the dips and then measure the hole as it were.

I think you'll find most mattresses the tolerance for dipping is quite considerable at around 2 inches.

Is the mattress on a suitable base? Not an old sprung base 30 years old that's knackered? Not a base with a massive dip in the middle of it?

Do you sit on the mattress for long periods of time, hair, make up etc...

How often do you turn the mattress over or rotate it if it's a 1 sided mattress.

Have you moved house and the mattress has taken a beating in the move?

These are the types of things that any decent bed retailer would like to know before making a decision. It's also the reason why they are sending someone out, as someone trained will spot if a mattress has been misused.

Of course Dreams will have dozens and dozens of complaints, they have over 200 stores, how many mattresses/beds do they send out each week? Thousands and thousands. Before anyone says I do not work for Dreams, but am in the trade.

Good Luck.

oscar52

meer53 wrote: »

You can't deal with a Section 75 claim if you haven't allowed the retailer to resolve your problem first or your case will just be thrown out.

Section 75 states that retailer and card issuer are equally liable - so why not?

Might not be the way to do it, but you dont have to go to the retailer first (what happens if the retailer is no longer trading?)

lisyloo

Section 75 states that retailer and card issuer are equally liable - so why not?

There is also a part that says you have to pursure the retailer first.
You can search this on MSE as someone pointed it out to me when I was saying the same as you. They quoted chapter and verse. Could probably find it with a search if you're really interested.

what happens if the retailer is no longer trading?

I would say that's an exception.

mattz38

If the company is still trading then they will obviously defend the claim and chargeback rules mean you have to come to a dead end with the company first. If you just go straight in for a chargeback without trying to sort it with them first it will just been thrown out (as already stated).

These sort of claims are always very subjective as you would need to get someone neutral to do the testing. Even then, the card schemes aren't exactly experts on mattress integrity so you run a good chance of your claim being unsuccessful. M &S are probably approaching it on this basis so are naturally reluctant to take up the claim at this stage.

thenudeone

lisyloo wrote: »

There is also a part that says you have to pursure the retailer first.

No.
In law, that requirement only applies to claims under s75A for claims £30000-£60260 under a linked credit agreement (i.e. one drawn up specifically for the purchase, not a general agreement such as a credit card)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75A

The original S75 itself does NOT specifically require the cardholder to attempt to take the matter up with the retailer first.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75
However, in practice I would expect the courts to take a dim view of a cardholder who didn't take reasonable steps to resolve the matter directly. Whether the court would (or could) refuse to allow a claim just for that reason is debatable.