John Lewis won't refund mattress purchased online
Comments
-
I'm quite surprised at John Lewis, they usually have a good reputation for customer service and would have expected them to have similar return policy on mattresses that a lot of other retailers do.
Ikea offer a 90 day guarantee , Dreams, a 40 night and lots of others as well.0 -
Amazon refunded for a mattress I bought from a Marketplace seller as it wasn't suitable, they even paid for the collection and replacement packaging - I must say I didn't rate my chances of getting my money back, so it was certainly a surprise when they agreed the refund so easily.0
-
I'm more than a little puzzled as to why my post in which I say the op is correct, has been removed?!
Can anyone explain to me?
Which bit of " Correct........................"
Has breached the rules? Or offended
You have to put dots after a single word or the site will not accept it.
Or should I have posted a hundred words where one will do?0 -
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.
The Court provided the example of mattresses in a hotel being constantly used by multiple guests and also applied the Attorney General's example of comparing a mattress with items of clothing tried on by consumers. Bottom line, unless its absolutely impossible for the goods not to be put in a resaleable condition due to health or hygiene (for example toothbrushes), then the exemption won't apply.
The Court did go on to explain that where the goods have diminished in value, the trader is entitled to be compensated. In other words, the consumer should take care of the goods if they are not sure they will be keeping them.
The AG's opinion is also an interesting read as although the CJEU didn't discuss the meaning of sealed goods, the AG gave some in-depth explanation on this and may be of assistance in other cases.
Link to slewo v Ledowski
Link to AG Opinion40. Accordingly, it must be found that, as the Advocate General points out in point 33 of his Opinion, the exception to the right of withdrawal under Article 16(e) of Directive 2011/83 applies only if, after the packaging has been unsealed, the goods contained therein are definitively no longer in a saleable condition due to genuine health protection or hygiene reasons, because the very nature of the goods makes it impossible or excessively difficult, for the trader to take the necessary measures allowing for resale without affecting either of those requirements.
42. First, although it may potentially have been used, such a mattress does not appear, by that fact alone, to be definitively unsuitable for being used again by a third party or for being sold again. It suffices, in that regard, to recall in particular that one and the same mattress is used by successive guests at a hotel, that there is a market for second-hand mattresses and that used mattresses can be deep-cleaned
45. It is common ground that many garments, when they are tried on in accordance with their intended purpose, may come into contact with the human body — which cannot be ruled out in the case of mattresses — without being subject in practice to requirements in terms of special protection in order to prevent such contact during trying on.
46. Such an equation between those two categories of goods — namely garments and mattresses — may, as the Advocate General notes in point 34 of his Opinion, be envisaged, in so far as, even in the case of direct contact of those goods with the human body, 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 withdrawal0 -
Problem with mattress purchase OP says its not firm i say its to firm .
The word <orthopedic > is just a sales gimick when refering to these products .
Bad back depends upon weight build sleeping position when choosing . In some cases a firm mattress is not the answer .
Ikea have products you can lie on though very short term testing is hardly going to be of use .0 -
Problem with mattress purchase OP says its not firm i say its to firm .
Doesn't really matter though, because the mattress was bought online and not tried in store, so as long as the OP is still in time they have an absolute right to return (as long as Wiseguy's post is correct). The firmness of the mattress is irrelevant unless the OP wants to try a not as described return rather than a change of mind.0 -
For me this was never in doubt. There was always an argument by some as to whether mattresses were excluded from distance selling regulations due to the hygiene issue which as you've correctly highlighted are not. The part of the legislation regarding products with hygiene seals is more with medical products and the like, or products specifically relating to personal hygiene.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.
The Court provided the example of mattresses in a hotel being constantly used by multiple guests and also applied the Attorney General's example of comparing a mattress with items of clothing tried on by consumers. Bottom line, unless its absolutely impossible for the goods not to be put in a resaleable condition due to health or hygiene (for example toothbrushes), then the exemption won't apply.
The Court did go on to explain that where the goods have diminished in value, the trader is entitled to be compensated. In other words, the consumer should take care of the goods if they are not sure they will be keeping them.
The AG's opinion is also an interesting read as although the CJEU didn't discuss the meaning of sealed goods, the AG gave some in-depth explanation on this and may be of assistance in other cases.
Link to slewo v Ledowski
Link to AG Opinion
As you rightly mention this is more to do with the issue of the OP handling the goods that have gone beyond what they normally are allowed to do, and in which case JL can't refuse a return but can deduct a reasonable amount to cover the mattress's diminished value.0 -
John Lewis have outsourced their previously fantastic customer service to Capita.RichardD1970 wrote: »I'm quite surprised at John Lewis, they usually have a good reputation for customer service and would have expected them to have similar return policy on mattresses that a lot of other retailers do.
Ikea offer a 90 day guarantee , Dreams, a 40 night and lots of others as well.
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.0 -
For me this was never in doubt. There was always an argument by some as to whether mattresses were excluded from distance selling regulations due to the hygiene issue which as you've correctly highlighted are not. The part of the legislation regarding products with hygiene seals is more with medical products and the like, or products specifically relating to personal hygiene.
As you rightly mention this is more to do with the issue of the OP handling the goods that have gone beyond what they normally are allowed to do, and in which case JL can't refuse a return but can deduct a reasonable amount to cover the mattress's diminished value.
I don't think I was either, but this is one of those rare cases that helpfully discusses how the exception rules apply. The Court also confirmed that the exemptions should, as with any exclusion or limitation, be given a narrow interpretation.
If the OP has only removed the seal for simply testing the mattress out for one night, I'm not sure that will qualify for the diminished value rule (the trader could give it a deep clean preserving its value) and I would expect a full refund, unless there's been some physical damage to it in the process. Either way, it would be wise to photograph the current state before handing the mattress over.
The difficulty might be the OP trying to argue the case with reference to this case decision and the JL customer service team not having any of it, so it might need to be escalated or worst case, legal proceedings. Of course if JL refuse to even collect the mattress, the OP could mirror what Ledowski did and arrange own transportation then issue a claim for the recovery of those costs and the price paid.0 -
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.If the OP has only removed the seal for simply testing the mattress out for one night, I'm not sure that will qualify for the diminished value rule (the trader could give it a deep clean preserving its value) and I would expect a full refund, unless there's been some physical damage to it in the process. Either way, it would be wise to photograph the current state before handing the mattress over.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards