M&S busted bra story

LABMAN

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I think it is ridiculous having to take the other one back as well.


What a waste as they would just bin it.




They should have refunded her the whole amount or half if they were feeling mean.

They don't, they return faulty goods to the suppliers for it to be examined and a refund of cost. Therefore item would need to be complete.

tomtontom

I'm intrigued as to how you can take off a 42E bra "discretely" :eek:

SuperHan

Not unreasonable, especially as they didn't have another pack to swap out the faulty one from.

It also says she was trying to obtain a refund. You don't take half of the thing back and ask for a refund. You it all back. They're systems are unlikely to be able to cope with partial refunds, so it's not unreasonable they would want the whole product returning.

Just write it off as a bad one and go back another day! I'd take my bra off for a free bra, refund and £50 voucher though...

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Brilliant story. Just thinking, was she up a mountain when she did it!

Pollycat

lincroft1710 wrote: »

She was so humiliated she decided to share her humiliation with the whole world, and among the 695 comments the on line article attracted are some very unflattering ones

^^^ Exactly this.

Desperate for her 15 minutes of fame.
Silly woman.

InsideInsurance

aaroncaz wrote: »

She did get a refund plus £50 in vouchers, they wouldn't just bin it they send it back to the manufacturers and get their money back.

They may or may not, depends on their relationship with their suppliers. A former employer used to get significant discounts from their suppliers by not returning faulty goods and so most ended up in the Staff Discount Shop.

tomtontom wrote: »

I'm intrigued as to how you can take off a 42E bra "discretely" :eek:

In the changing rooms presumably but given she seems to want attention I assume it was in the middle of the shop floor

LABMAN

InsideInsurance wrote: »

They may or may not, depends on their relationship with their suppliers. A former employer used to get significant discounts from their suppliers by not returning faulty goods and so most ended up in the Staff Discount Shop.



In the changing rooms presumably but given she seems to want attention I assume it was in the middle of the shop floor

M&S do return them to their suppliers. My wife worked for one of them and some of the returns went from the sublime to the ridiculous. They had a return of a garment they hadn't made for 10 years.

TRT

M&S are absolutely correct in not refunding in full a set or multipack which is part returned. From second tier of dispute resolution, the cancellation of contract by refund, the entirety of the goods supplied should be returned, and perhaps the woman should have been prepared for that scenario (ho ho, should join in with MSE and go forearmed!)

However before it reaches cancellation of contract, there's the somewhat liberal option of negotiating a resolution - retaining the faulty item for return to manufacturer whilst offering, say, store vouchers to the amount of half the purchase price of the two pack or replacing the faulty item with part of a pack off the shop-floor or offering to post out a replacement when next in stock.

She did very well out of the incident, and the humiliation of exposing herself in the newspapers could and should have been avoided. I'm trying to understand her mindset regarding this incident. She's been using them for a few weeks, they're not "part-of-a-set" like pyjamas, but part of a multi-pack, she expected to get the item replaced perhaps from off the shelf? If one item is rejected as being unfit for purpose, but the other one is accepted, how does that sit in consumer law? (Obviously if one is rejected, the whole of the item line is rejected, but couldn't that be said the other way round? She accepts one, she accepts both?)

Pollycat

TRT wrote: »

She did very well out of the incident, and the humiliation of exposing herself in the newspapers could and should have been avoided. I'm trying to understand her mindset regarding this incident. She's been using them for a few weeks, they're not "part-of-a-set" like pyjamas, but part of a multi-pack, she expected to get the item replaced perhaps from off the shelf? If one item is rejected as being unfit for purpose, but the other one is accepted, how does that sit in consumer law? (Obviously if one is rejected, the whole of the item line is rejected, but couldn't that be said the other way round? She accepts one, she accepts both?)

Humiliation?
She looks pretty smug in the 2 photos of her holding up the bras.

Good publicity for her bouncy castle hire company perhaps?

tomtontom

Pollycat wrote: »

Humiliation?
She looks pretty smug in the 2 photos of her holding up the bras.

Good publicity for her bouncy castle hire company perhaps?

Her bouncy castles are for hire? :eek: