John Lewis won't refund mattress purchased online

George_Michael

Wiseguy wrote: »

Fortunately, the OP is in luck. The Court of Justice of the Euorpean Union has decided on this point last month in slew v Ledowski Case C-681/17, upholding the opinion of the Attorney General that mattresses which have the protective seal removed following delivery does not prevent the consumer from exercising their right of withdrawal.

However, as the ruling also states:

it may be presumed that the trader is in a position to make those goods, after they have been returned by the consumer, by means of a treatment such as cleaning or disinfection, suitable for new use by a third party and, accordingly, for a new sale, without prejudice to the requirements of health protection or hygiene.

47. The fact remains that, in accordance with Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/83, read in the light of recital 47 thereof, the consumer is liable for any diminished value of goods resulting from handling other than that necessary in order to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, without the consumer thereby being deprived of his right of withdrawal

If the retailer can restore the bed to "as new" condition and as the consumer can be charged for this if they have gone beyond normal handling (as would be allowed in a shop) and as someone wouldn't be able to spend a night sleeping on a mattress in a shop, then if the OP were to get JL to accept the mattress back, they may still find themselves well out of pocket.

forgotmyname

Cleaning a mattress to 100% guarantee its clean and bug free is probably more costly than making a new one.

neilmcl

forgotmyname wrote: »

Cleaning a mattress to 100% guarantee its clean and bug free is probably more costly than making a new one.

They wouldn't do it anyway. All returned mattress and unsold ex-display mattresses from JL end up being sold at a loss at auction.

Wiseguy

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't agree on this point. The legislation is quite clear that the handling should not go beyond what you could expect to do in a physical store. I don't know many stores that will allow you go to sleep on their demo mattresses and then sell them on as new.

Yes and I think we are both in agreement here, but in the context of a mattress, I think it is reasonable to say that in order to fully test this product, you would need have at least more than a couple of hours to determine the nature and characteristics i.e. sleeping on it overnight since that's when you would be generally the time you expect to make use of it; perhaps even two days might still be considered reasonable, particularly where in the OP's case it is a mattress intended to address a specific problem.

George_Michael wrote: »

If the retailer can restore the bed to "as new" condition and as the consumer can be charged for this if they have gone beyond normal handling (as would be allowed in a shop) and as someone wouldn't be able to spend a night sleeping on a mattress in a shop, then if the OP were to get JL to accept the mattress back, they may still find themselves well out of pocket.

I see your point but the judgment does talk about the goods, through use have reduced in value, not the cost of bringing it back into a saleable condition. My view is that the trader bears the cost of putting it into a saleable condition i.e. as new. If however the goods have been damaged or well-used (and to take neilmcl's point about using the product more than is necessary) so much so the mattress cannot be considered to be sold as new, then of course the trader can retain a portion of amount paid. A moot point and can be argued either way, but forgotmyname makes a good point that the cleaning the mattress might be costlier or close to the amount paid. I don't think that is the objective here, particularly when the CJEU makes the point about consumers being afforded a high level of protection.

It will be interesting to see whether the German court awards compensation to the trader for diminishing value, since we don't know from the CJEU decision how long Ledowski used the mattress - all we know is that he ordered it on 24 November and informed slewo on 9 December.

George_Michael

Wiseguy wrote: »

I see your point but the judgment does talk about the goods, through use have reduced in value, not the cost of bringing it back into a saleable condition.

But a second hand, used mattress is saleable, just not at the same price as a new and sealed one.
Surely if the retailer has to spend money to return it to "as new" condition where it can be sold for full price, this must mean that before this cleaning work was carried out, the mattress will have had a diminished value due to being slept on, and the CCR's do specifically allow a retailer to reduce the refund for goods being used more that that generally allowed in a store.

elsien

Wiseguy wrote: »

Yes and I think we are both in agreement here, but in the context of a mattress, I think it is reasonable to say that in order to fully test this product, you would need have at least more than a couple of hours to determine the nature and characteristics i.e. sleeping on it overnight since that's when you would be generally the time you expect to make use of it; perhaps even two days might still be considered reasonable, particularly where in the OP's case it is a mattress intended to address a specific problem.

People who buy from a physical store manage to make this judgment after probably lying on it for less than 10 minutes, with no right of return. They certainly don't get to sleep on it overnight.
I fail to see why an online purchase can't be tested in the same way in the home without the cover being removed.

Wiseguy

George_Michael wrote: »

But a second hand, used mattress is saleable, just not at the same price as a new and sealed one.
Surely if the retailer has to spend money to return it to "as new" condition where it can be sold for full price, this must mean that before this cleaning work was carried out, the mattress will have had a diminished value due to being slept on, and the CCR's do specifically allow a retailer to reduce the refund for goods being used more that that generally allowed in a store.

Not necessarily. If let's say the mattress has been tested for 10 minutes and the consumer returns it, the trader could (presumably as a matter of practice) give the mattress a clean before selling it for the full price - that doesn't mean it has diminished in value, just the trader could give it the once over from any initial use or loose hairs before re-sealing and selling at full market price.

Another example could be where a consumer purchases some earphones which comes with several sizes of earbuds. The consumer might test them for sound quality and then return them if not to their liking. The trader could consider them to be in a saleable condition, clean the earbuds with a disinfectant solution and/or replace the specific buds and then re-market them for the same price. That may not necessarily mean the goods have diminished in value because they have had to spend some cost rather that because they have come into human contact, it is better safe than sorry to give them a clean before re-selling. I'm guessing the likes of online clothes shops such as Asos might do something similar but I don't know enough about them.

Yes the CCRs say that they can reduce the refund as a result of the handling, which is deemed to be what is reasonably allowed in a shop taking into account the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods. That doesn't mean that there has to be a time limit on testing or handling the goods but depending on their nature, characteristic and functions, one might allow a longer period of time to test and review certain goods over others.

Equally, whilst some, if not all physical stores that sell mattresses do not allow you to test the mattress overnight, there are certainly mattress stores online that do offer to do that, and for up to 3 months. Whilst your view might be constrained to what physical shops may or may not allow (and I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right), I think with the way in which retail is evolving and given that more and more consumers are doing their shopping online, that ought to be something that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not you have handled the goods beyond what is necessary.

We could debate this all day long but only a court could give a definitive ruling on that, but it is good to discuss and see other points of view - it's always going to be a contentious one and definitely on a case by case basis.

@elsien, that may be so but I make no comment on the point about making a snap judgment in 10 minutes. I agree people could test the mattress with the protective cover but that no longer is an issue given the Court's decision.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

So long story short if you want to return a mattress that you've opened don't tell the store you slept on it all night and let them work out what condition it's in.

Just to add what I've mentioned in a previous thread regarding reduced refunds, if the required information isn't provided the right for the retailer to reduce the refund for diminished value is lost.

RichardD1970

stragglebod wrote: »

John Lewis have outsourced their previously fantastic customer service to Capita.
I'm already hearing lots of examples of terrible JL customer service recently. No surprise if you've come across Crapita in any other context.
Once they lose their reputation for customer service, it's difficult to see what reason anyone would have to buy from JL when you can get the same stuff cheaper elsewhere.

Didn't know that thanks.

And yes I've come across C(r)apita in many forms, none of them good.

DollyTheSheep

Why has no-one mentioned "Distance Selling Regulations" that pretty much cover anything bought online?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Protection_(Distance_Selling)_Regulations_2000

Mattresses are not exempt from this as far as I am aware - all these online mattresses offer a trial periods such as Simba, Emma, Leesa and Casper.

You should have the right to return it if you contact them via email within 14 days of receiving it. Pretty bad service from John Lewis, very surprising. If no joy with that, go to your credit card company who are jointly liable and state it is "not as described"