The facts of the case
A consumer bought a special occasion dress for €219. After a month, she took it to be dry-cleaned at a professional dry-cleaning company. When a few days later the consumer received the dress back, she immediately saw that it was not cleaned well. In addition, she noticed that the dress’s padding was inverted, the corset twisted and misshapen, and the zipper was all scratched.
The consumer took the dress back to the dry-cleaning company, and left the dress at the company to check it out. Eventually, the company acknowledged that the dress was indeed stained. The company argued that the dress was cleaned as per its care label and suggested that it might have gotten dirty again during delivery.
The dry-cleaning company offered to clean the dress again and to repair the damages. However, the consumer did not accept the offer and requested a refund of the dress’s purchase price.
Since no agreement was reached, the consumer filed an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to initiate the conciliation procedure.
However, even with the Office’s involvement, no mutual agreement was reached between the two parties. Subsequently, the consumer was given the option to submit her case before the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance, the tribunal noted that the consumer was claiming a refund of €219, which corresponds to the full price she paid for the occasion dress she had bought a month prior to having it dry cleaned.
The consumer asserted that the dress was not properly cleaned and that it had suffered damages during the dry-cleaning process. To this claim, the company stated that they adhered strictly to the cleaning instructions provided for the dress.
Once a dress loses its shape, restoring it through repairs becomes very challenging
The company’s representative admitted that during the cleaning process, the bust paddings became twisted and because of this, the zip got scratched. The representative explained that the company had offered the consumer to fix the dress and replace the zipper, but the consumer declined their offer.
The tribunal also observed that while it would have been preferable for the consumer to present the actual purchase receipt of the dress instead of the bank transaction, the representative did not contest the fact that the company had cleaned the dress. Furthermore, while the company’s representative insisted that the dress was cleaned as per its manufacturer’s cleaning instructions, they failed to provide details about what the care label indicated or the method used for cleaning, whether it was through dry cleaning or if the dress was washed in a washing machine.
Furthermore, the company did not offer any explanation as to why the dress was cleaned again without the consumer’s consent. In fact, based on the provided documents, it transpired that the dress underwent a second cleaning the day after the consumer returned the dress to the dry-cleaning company.
The tribunal further considered that the consumer’s version of events was more credible and better substantiated. With no evidence provided regarding how the dry-cleaning company handled the dress, and after reviewing the submitted photos of the dress, the tribunal found merit in the consumer’s claim.
The tribunal also noted that the dress was still essentially brand new and that the consumer had the right to expect that the dry-cleaning process would not damage her dress. Furthermore, once a dress loses its shape, restoring it through repairs becomes very challenging.
The tribunal highlighted that the company’s willingness to change the zipper and repair the paddings implies an acknowledgement that the cleaning process was not carried out professionally as it had damaged the dress. Furthermore, the photos revealed that the dress’s zipper was not a common zip as it had a distinct colour matching the dress, indicating its uniqueness.
The tribunal’s decision
After a thorough consideration of the presented facts, the tribunal ruled in favour of the consumer’s claim and ordered the defendant company to pay the sum of €219. Additionally, the tribunal instructed the company that upon issuing the refund, it may retain possession of the dress. Moreover, the tribunal decided that the defendant company must cover the expenses associated with the tribunal’s proceedings.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.