Peter Christian: Fareham pensioners go into battle after jumper shrinks in the wash

The couple started their preparations for Christmas last October, but little did they realise a decision to advance purchase an up-market Donegal jumper from Horsham gentleman outfitters Peter Christian was about to land them in hot water.

‘I’d bought a pair of trousers and some shirts online from them,’ Derek explained, ‘but my wife said one of their jumpers looked nice and I agreed but it was a bit pricey, so she said she’d get me it for Christmas.’

‘Christmas came, I opened the parcel and I have to say it was a lovely jumper to wear, you really felt at home in it.’

NOW READ: Pensioners launched refund battle after Wizz Air flight is cancelled when they were already on it

‘Then in March I asked her to wash it for me. We looked at the label and it said it was washable at a 30-degree machine wash, so she stuck it in the machine but when she took it out and held it up it she said it appeared to have shrunk.’

‘She put it out in the conservatory to dry. She didn’t put it through the tumble drier or anything. I said hang on a minute I’ll try it on, only to find it had gone to a small size from an extra large.’

The couple went away for Easter but on their return naval veteran Derek, 80, clearly felt he’d been on the receiving end of a raw deal and wasn’t at all happy about the £90 literally going down the drain.

‘I phoned the firm up to complain and ask what their policy was but despite it going up the chain, nobody was prepared to comment or say anything.

‘As requested, I sent them a photograph of the jumper and the measurements, but it wasn’t until I contacted Streetwise and concocted an email to send to them they then snottily said we’ve not had this with any of our jumpers before.

‘In a further exchange of emails, a member of their customer care team insisted they’d not had any other complaints about washing and shrinkage of the jumper, and due to the nature of the garment including lambswool there was a possibility if it wasn’t cared for as advised it could shrink.

‘Finding myself backed into a corner I wrote to them to let them know I’d consulted my local paper about turning to the small claims court or alerting Trust Pilot for a resolution. Having provided them with all the questions about my statutory rights I still hadn’t received any of the answers.’

Feeling miffed at being accused of misuse, a frustrated Derek recontacted Streetwise for further help and advice. He agreed it didn’t make sense to deliberately ignore the washing instructions for a £90 jumper. It wasn’t as if it was a street market cheapo.

While we were satisfied Peter Christian were a very reputable customer orientated business, we went through with Derek the timescale and sequence of events to establish if he had any lawful contractual rights of rejection of the faulty garment.

We confirmed the purchase of goods from a retailer requires the merchandise to be of satisfactory quality and fit for a particular purpose.

The 2015 Consumer Rights Act identifies the relevant quality elements, including considering how they are described, any public statement about the goods in advertising or labelling, the price paid, appearance and finish, and how long they can be reasonably expected to last in normal usage.

We also emphasised to Derek adherence to a buyer’s statutory rights is the responsibility of the seller in all circumstances not the manufacturer. Consumers are protected from becoming involved in dodgy product quality wrangles with retailers who are required to prove responsibility for post purchase defects for up to six months from the date of purchase.

The remedy for breach of contract for faulty goods has relevant fixed timescales. Consumer complaints about faulty goods within 30 days of purchase entitle buyers to an automatic no-quibble refund by the seller of the full purchase price.

Thereafter, we pointed out if goods are flagged up faulty by a buyer within six months of purchase, retailers were on shaky grounds if they didn’t insist on making one attempt to complete a satisfactory repair within a reasonable time, or alternatively provide a replacement or refund.

However, faulty goods reported to the seller after six months from the date of purchase face a far more demanding and stringent procedure. The burden of proof is reversed, requiring the buyer to establish credible evidence the goods must have been faulty when they bought them.

As Derek had reported the laundering defect within the six-month rejection window, Streetwise went over customer services’ head about the unacceptable shrinkage of his upmarket Donegal jumper.

We got onto Peter Christian’s managing director Nicholas Alderton on his behalf, challenging him to justify the firm’s understandable but stock negative response to Derek’s legitimate complaint.

Although it was superficially plausible, the £90 price tag was crucially relevant. The shrinkage denial and lack of durability was an assertion that did not amount to the objective proof required by law, which could only be established by independent laundering tests.

Derek was subsequently contacted by a customer care spokesperson apologising for being unhappy and disappointed with his jumper. His rejection was confirmed, and he agreed to accept a full refund offer of the £90. The company declined to provide Streetwise with any additional comment.

He said: ‘Thank you so much. I wouldn’t been able to carry on without Streetwise’s help and advice. You gave me confidence when you explained chapter and verse where I stood and what I was entitled to.’