Mattress exchange/refund rights 17 October 2022 at 12:00PM in Consumer rights 59 replies 1.8K views

greenstick

Thank you all for your comments.  I may give the card company a call and see what they say.

I've just read something that says the retailer has 45 days to dispute a reversed transaction, is this correct?  I assume in my case a dispute would centre around them already offering the required replacement (and going above and beyond by offering a credit against a different item).

I realise they're offer is generous but need to have considered all the options as now is not a good time for us to be spending this amount of money and there are suitable options out there that cost less, just not with this retailer.

DullGreyGuy

That is a chargeback which is when the monies are taken from the merchant's account however you are probably over the timelimits for a chargeback (havent scanned back for the dates).

For a S75 its between you and your creditor and it comes from your banks pocket not the merchant. Typically the merchant isnt involved in the process 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

No they offered the OP a choice. End of the day offering a replacement is all that was required. It is OP that is not happy with that offer, as they feel it will happen again

If the card provider has equal liability is there any obligation for the consumer to approach the retailer?

greenstick

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

No they offered the OP a choice. End of the day offering a replacement is all that was required. It is OP that is not happy with that offer, as they feel it will happen again

If the card provider has equal liability is there any obligation for the consumer to approach the retailer?

I've been looking at the wording of the Consumer Credit Act and it seems there is (d):

1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—

(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,

(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,

(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or

(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

No they offered the OP a choice. End of the day offering a replacement is all that was required. It is OP that is not happy with that offer, as they feel it will happen again

If the card provider has equal liability is there any obligation for the consumer to approach the retailer?

They will always ask you to do this. As it's a bit hard to argue many cases when retailer has not had a chance to respond. So CC can say without that as far as they see, there is no breech.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

greenstick said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

No they offered the OP a choice. End of the day offering a replacement is all that was required. It is OP that is not happy with that offer, as they feel it will happen again

If the card provider has equal liability is there any obligation for the consumer to approach the retailer?

I've been looking at the wording of the Consumer Credit Act and it seems there is (d):

1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—

(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,

(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,

(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or

(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

Thank you I was too lazy to check. It seems to be here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75A?view=plain

under further previsions rather than in the Act.

It does also say

For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

but I guess if you didn't accept a remedy that is in accordance with consumer rights you wouldn't be acting reasonably nor mitigating your losses.

So it seems OP doesn't have recourse with the credit provider. 

Personally I'd take the replacement, if it fails again then there would be the final right to reject for a refund (reduced to account for usage if the store wishes to). 

greenstick

Hi everyone

We decided to upgrade to a more expensive mattress.  Paid the difference and received the replacement which was faulty on delivery.  Contacted the store as soon as we saw the fault and a replacement was arranged, along with a free gift for the inconvenience).  When the 3rd mattress arrived, it was clear before it was even unpacked that it had the same issue as the 2nd one, the delivery drivers agreed and took it away, unopened.

We have requested a refund of both amounts paid, but now the store want to send a 3rd party company out to inspect the one we have (which should by rights have been taken away yesterday for disposal) before they'll discuss a refund, saying "it's their right" to do this but surely they have acknowledged the fault by agreeing to replace it in the first place?

We're happy to have it inspected, it's clearly faulty but between us both we've already taken 2 additional days off work as they don't give a timeslot until the day before and this will mean a 3rd day for the inspector and a 4th for collection.  It will also leave us without a mattress until we source another one and have it delivered.

Can anyone advise if they do indeed have the right to inspect a mattress that they have already agreed to replace and what position we're in regarding our right for a refund?

Am I also right in thinking that if we went S75 route, they'd (quite reasonable) request a 3rd party report?

WhiskersTheWonderCat

If it is faulty, why do you have a problem with them confirming it? 

And I guess maybe they are exercising their right to check the first mattress, now that you have found faults with two further mattresses. How significant were these faults? 

Ath_Wat

greenstick said:

We do not want the same mattress again as we feel this is a build quality issue with this model of mattress, not specific to the item we have.  We've tested the alternatives in a store, the only one we found comfortable is over double the price and we are tied to finding something in their store.

I can't help wondering whether, as this mattress is apparently half the price of any comparable mattress, you have unrealistic expectations of the build quality.  They have to cut a corner somewhere to make it saleable at that price, surely.  What are the faults?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

greenstick said:

We do not want the same mattress again as we feel this is a build quality issue with this model of mattress, not specific to the item we have.  We've tested the alternatives in a store, the only one we found comfortable is over double the price and we are tied to finding something in their store.

I can't help wondering whether, as this mattress is apparently half the price of any comparable mattress, you have unrealistic expectations of the build quality.  They have to cut a corner somewhere to make it saleable at that price, surely.  What are the faults?

Although price is a consideration goods should be fit for purpose meaning they are able to perform as their intended function.

They should also be durable but obviously a £100 mattress wouldn’t be expected to last as long as a £1000 mattress, and perhaps over time the reduced value of the £100 mattress wouldn’t be worth the effort to chase.