North Face -false advertising

Fosterdog

There really wouldn’t be much of a noticeable difference between 550 and 600 fill and what martinsurrey says about weight is correct. Plus lower fill ratings weigh more so it seems strange that you noticed that the new jacket is significantly lighter when it should actually be heavier and puffier than a higher fill rating.

Just accept the refund and move on.

martinsurrey

ND2017 wrote: »

Yes I do. I work for part time for a pillow manufacturer who use down. I don't think you fully understand about the quality measurements of down.

I do, and I know Northface do not advertise the weight per m2 of insulation on their jackets, just the number.

So how you managed to compare your old one to the new one I dont know, if you knew about down fill power numbers you would have known that JUST the down number is useless for a comparison.

example northface

you mentioned that the jacket was lighter than previous jackets, as if that means its not as advertised, as above, an 800 down jacket could weigh 100g (and be freezing)while a 550 down jacket could weigh 800g (and be toasty warm).

I'm not saying that they haven't messed up, you bought 600 and got 550, but you have messed up by relying on an number that alone is irrelevant.

ND2017

It is definitely lighter than my previous coat, but I think that could be down to the cut of the coat and also it has less zips etc, but it forced me to look at it.

I'm not disputing what martinsurrey has mentioned it's more his condescending tone. There's no need for it. I'm not one to say something that I don't know the meaning of and not one to spend money on something I don't understand -so why make presumptions as he has?!

Anyway, thanks for your reply. it's always good to get other peoples perspective when you are in the thick of a red mist -over reaction or not.

ND2017

It's not useless. It indicates the quality of the down used.

ND2017

...but thanks for your reply.

ND2017

Thanks for the responses so far. There is a lot focus on the fill down and I understand why as this was the discrepancy in the details I provided.

I think what probably hasn't come across is my frustration that a brand is selling an item using a technical feature to differentiate it from other similar items as a justification to put a higher price tag on it when in fact it is not any better in that respect. They are unapologetic in their admission of the misleading information they have provided and are continuing to use this as a selling point, which to me seems fundamentally wrong. To detract from what seems to be trivial for some (the purchase of a coat) an extreme example would be e.g. a company selling a car with 7 gears for £40k when it actually only has 5 gears, the same as the one selling for £30K.

I came here to seek guidance because (I have no experience) to see if anyone knew of a body who deals with companies who deem it fair to mislead it's customers and to see if it was worth going down that avenue. I didn't come here for a refund or be compensated or have my knowledge of down placed under the microscope.

Thank you elsien for recommending the Advertising Standards Authority.

photome

I get all of your analagies but in each case they would at best only offer you a refund which is what you have been offered.

as has been said the fact you sold your old coat is not relevant to your complaint.

If they are still advertising it incorrectly, report them

lincroft1710

Companies can place higher price tags on items without any or just minimal differences to cheaper ones. If however they falsely advertise or misrepresent a product then they can be reported to the ASA.

In terms of statutory rights as a consumer, you were offered a refund which is exactly what TNF should have done. They have no obligation to apologise for what seems to be a misleading statement or causing you to have (in your belief) an inferior garment to the one you sold.

Sorry, it may appear blunt but there is no point in telling you things which may make you feel better but do not ultimately help you

esuhl

elsien wrote: »

They've offered you a full refund, which meets their obligations.

Not quite. They are also obliged to correct the false information as soon as reasonably practical.

ND2017

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Companies can place higher price tags on items without any or just minimal differences to cheaper ones. If however they falsely advertise or misrepresent a product then they can be reported to the ASA.

In terms of statutory rights as a consumer, you were offered a refund which is exactly what TNF should have done. They have no obligation to apologise for what seems to be a misleading statement or causing you to have (in your belief) an inferior garment to the one you sold.

Sorry, it may appear blunt but there is no point in telling you things which may make you feel better but do not ultimately help you

No need to be sorry. I don't need wrapping up in cotton wool. I appreciate your response. Thank you.