Bensons Awful Bed

cockaleekee

LikesWhisky wrote: »

Yes - a good and reasonable point.

But when I mentioned FIRA I put 'independent' in commas because there is plenty coverage that FIRA act in the interests of the company that pays them for the report. The Guardian newspaper have done three features in recent years about the so-called independence of FIRA.

And memory foam should go back to its original position after use, certainly for the guarantee period. There appears to be poor quality memory foam out there.

Which is why the OP needs an alternative expert report - the word of the Guardian is not going to be sufficient to satisfy a judge.

FWIW I had a FIRA technician visit me to report on a faulty sofa. The report/ visit was paid for by the retailer, but the technician agreed with me that it was inherently faulty. Hence it would be quite possible for a journalist to write an article stating quite the opposite of the Guardian!

LikesWhisky

cockaleekee wrote: »

- the word of the Guardian is not going to be sufficient to satisfy a judge.

Yup - I agree. The judge needs to hear a 'compelling case' as it's called in the legal trade.

You mention that journalists can write about both sides, but of course newspapers and journalists are often more interested in companies that do not supply good product and customer service. Hence the negative coverage in the press about Bensons, and not just from from the Guardian.

It's interesting that nobody has jumped in to say that they have taken a supplier to court. That's where my question and this thread started. Bensons and the like rely on most folk being too busy or too scared to take it further.