Dormeo UK Ltd. - In Administration - Taken Over by United T and C Limited

tightauldgit

Alderbank said:

...so First Direct credit card should be vicariously liable for the failure of 'old' Dormeo UK to fulfil the contract?

You would certainly think so, though it seems to be confused by the fact that the OP has a mattress. I don't know enough about the banking rules to say whether the bank is liable for the warranty that the company offered on the product or whether simply receiving the product is enough to consider the contract satisfied.  

user1977

Jenni_D said:

My comment was based on the "Chargeback against the old company if administration could be proven" ... IF that is a valid chargeback option then that could be invoked. If it was the new company that fulfilled the order then surely a contract is in place?

No, they had no contractual obligation to the OP to supply anything. The fact they've done so doesn't create a contract.

tightauldgit

Jenni_D said:

My comment was based on the "Chargeback against the old company if administration could be proven" ... IF that is a valid chargeback option then that could be invoked. If it was the new company that fulfilled the order then surely a contract is in place?

Plus if the OP paid by credit card (and the amount was £100+) then they have a claim under S75 against the CC company ... the 60 day guarantee formed part of the contract, and liability for ALL contract terms is shared by the CC company.

A contract? Maybe. But on what terms? What contract would exist if I send you a mattress in the post tomorrow? The devil would be in the detail of on what basis the new company sent out the mattress and I'd be very surprised if they acquired the liabilities associated with warranties or guarantees.

I think the latter approach sounds more fruitful if that's what the rules say. 

born_again

Given the mattress was not supplied by old company 

the new owner of Dormeo had delivered my mattress as a "goodwill gesture"

Then is there actually a 60 day guarantee? Although it is still stated on their website, but they may argue that as good will, then it does not apply.

I was promised an email from Dormeo that would explain everything that I could take to my bank First Direct, and that other customers have used this with success. 

Not sure what they can put that would help, as they could end up shooting themselves in the foot. TBH. this would have been easier to sort out if they simply had said sorry no mattress as they had closed down. But as new owners, we would be happy to sell you one.

Edit > Just had a thought on this. If they state that as old co, ceased trading & as such never supplied the mattress. A chargeback could be done for non receipt.
But (this is the shot themselves in the foot) There is no 60 day return, as OP did not get goods. This would now be on new owners to honour. 
But FD would not be able to do a S75 on the 60 day return. As OP had not purchased anything from anyone. They received a free mattress from the new company 😶‍🌫️👍

Unless above edit happens then,
I can only see this going to a complaint with FD & maybe ending up with FOS to make a decision on.

Their rep told me that they would not be accepting a return on it but advised me to charge back on my credit card and donate the mattress they had delivered to charity. 

Got to love it when retailer staff say stuff like this, when they have no idea on the rules. Just using it as a excuse to get customer off the line & palm the issue elsewhere.

Manxman_in_exile

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If you paid £100 or more and the guarantee forms part of the T&Cs of the contract, won't your card provider need to do a s75 claim rather than a chargeback?

(You say you paid by credit card and I think your bank is right that a chargeback would not apply in these circumstances)

 I wouldn't have thought that S75 rights would apply here either, as the retailer - Dormeo in administration - haven't breached any sort of contract.  The OP has received the goods and there is nothing wrong with them, he merely doesn't like them.  Ordinarily a return based on change of mind would be fine under distance selling, but there is no longer any supplier to receive such a claim as they are in administration.  

Unfortunately, I feel that the OP is caught between a mattress and a soft place... 

Doesn't the guarantee/warranty form part of the contract?  Isn't it (or wasn't it) at least a representation to enter into the contrcat to buy.  If they don't fulfil the guarantee why wouldn't it be a breach?

Jenni_D

I think the point others are making is ... WHO is breaching WHAT contract? (New Co. sent the mattress as a goodwill gesture [apparently, although I'm still somewhat sceptical about this - after all, didn't they acquire the funds for that contract when taking over Old Co.?])

Ditzy_Mitzy

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If you paid £100 or more and the guarantee forms part of the T&Cs of the contract, won't your card provider need to do a s75 claim rather than a chargeback?

(You say you paid by credit card and I think your bank is right that a chargeback would not apply in these circumstances)

 I wouldn't have thought that S75 rights would apply here either, as the retailer - Dormeo in administration - haven't breached any sort of contract.  The OP has received the goods and there is nothing wrong with them, he merely doesn't like them.  Ordinarily a return based on change of mind would be fine under distance selling, but there is no longer any supplier to receive such a claim as they are in administration.  

Unfortunately, I feel that the OP is caught between a mattress and a soft place... 

Doesn't the guarantee/warranty form part of the contract?  Isn't it (or wasn't it) at least a representation to enter into the contrcat to buy.  If they don't fulfil the guarantee why wouldn't it be a breach?

I've been thinking about this and agree that you've asked the sixty four thousand dollar question.  The answer, without seeing the paperwork, is 'I don't know'.  There may well be a contract breach if the mattress was 'sold' with a sixty night guarantee included, but conversely there probably isn't if the mattress was sold under ordinary terms and the sixty night guarantee was merely a separate policy of the now defunct Dormeo.  

sheramber

As the old company were in administration due to lack of funding  what 'funds' do you think the new company would acquire?

They explain on their facebook page that they will honour  orders made before the takeover, but do not have the funds for any refunds.

if a cancellation is wanted, any refund is due from the old company who  are in administration, so there is no money to refund,  and q claim should be made from card provider.

tightauldgit

Jenni_D said:

I think the point others are making is ... WHO is breaching WHAT contract? (New Co. sent the mattress as a goodwill gesture [apparently, although I'm still somewhat sceptical about this - after all, didn't they acquire the funds for that contract when taking over Old Co.?])

I doubt there would have been any funds to acquire but even if there were buying money with money isn't really a very good business strategy. I'm assuming they didn't acquire the whole business as a going concern but just cherry-picked the assets they wanted. 

user1977

Jenni_D said:

I think the point others are making is ... WHO is breaching WHAT contract? (New Co. sent the mattress as a goodwill gesture [apparently, although I'm still somewhat sceptical about this - after all, didn't they acquire the funds for that contract when taking over Old Co.?])

The newco would be using their own funds to acquire the bunch of mattresses from the oldco...in any event, there's no principle that such a successor is then lumbered with all of the liabilities of the previous company, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to the bankruptcy process.