Dress shrunk in the wash can I insist on a refund?

Srayman

I bought a beautiful dress in French Connection in September, it is a party dress so I have only worn it twice, when I went to wear it last night I realised that the dress had shrunk, meaning that the lining is longer than the outer fabric. I took it into the shop today with my credit card statement as I couldn't find the receipt.
The manager asked me 3 times how I had washed the dress, (I washed it by hand as per instructions) and then told me that everybody lies if they want a refund. I stood my ground and said the dress was faulty and therefore I should have a refund.
She then asked to keep the dress and said she would call me on Monday to tell me if I could have a refund.
Is this correct? Am I entitled to a refund? What can I do if she refuses?

arcon5

No your not, possibly entitled to a remedy, such as a replacement. If they refund they can also reduce the amount - although probably not significantly after 3 month.

It's fair that they can inspect it first.

frugal_mike

Since it's less than 6 months since you purchased the dress they have to prove that it is not inherently faulty if they want to refuse a remedy.

bris

They will go by case history on this, even although these garments are tested for shrinkage etc before production.

They will decide on the basis on complaints, they sell hundreds if not thousands of these dresses so if you are the only one to complain, your complaint will fail.

PasturesNew

I'd have turned the hem up and shrugged.

System

bris wrote: »

They will go by case history on this, even although these garments are tested for shrinkage etc before production.

They will decide on the basis on complaints, they sell hundreds if not thousands of these dresses so if you are the only one to complain, your complaint will fail.

Absolute garbage.

By this argument if a product was faulty and they received hundreds of complaints then they wouldn't refund the original complainers and only start refunding when a certain number of complaints was reached!

Ridiculous.

Zandoni

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'd have turned the hem up and shrugged.

That's how manufacturers get away with making rubbish.

mattyprice4004

goater78 wrote: »

Absolute garbage.

By this argument if a product was faulty and they received hundreds of complaints then they wouldn't refund the original complainers and only start refunding when a certain number of complaints was reached!

Ridiculous.

This shows how little you know about how large retailers / manufacturers work - this is actually how a lot of companies do keep track of a product and its faults.

Many large companies I've worked for have done the same, with a detailed database of all issues with a product. I'd use such data to make decisions regarding remedies - if there were 10,000 of a product in circulation with a very small number of complaints, any claims would be taken very cautiously!

Tyler_Du

frugal_mike wrote: »

Since it's less than 6 months since you purchased the dress they have to prove that it is not inherently faulty if they want to refuse a remedy.

Don't think that's the case if you purchase in-store

Helix

Tyler_Durden_UK wrote: »

Don't think that's the case if you purchase in-store

Yes it is, its part of the Sales of Goods Act which applies to online and offline sales.

System

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

This shows how little you know about how large retailers / manufacturers work - this is actually how a lot of companies do keep track of a product and its faults.

Many large companies I've worked for have done the same, with a detailed database of all issues with a product. I'd use such data to make decisions regarding remedies - if there were 10,000 of a product in circulation with a very small number of complaints, any claims would be taken very cautiously!

So basically if a customer had a fault with a product you would only refund if you had other complaints about that product. So the first complainer would get nothing.

It's absolute rubbish. SOGA says the retailer must prove it's not inherently faulty. This "database" you consult does not prove that.