Money Problem: ‘A dry cleaners ruined my sofa and won’t replace it. What are my rights?’
Every week in our Money blog, we answer questions about your financial problems or consumer disputes. This week, a reader asked what rights they had after her sofa was ruined by a dry cleaners.
Reader Maureen asked: “I have had half my sofa covers cleaned by Johnsons, the cleaners. They have been ruined as the Belgian linen was hand washed and the care instructions not followed.
“This happened in July. I have been in communication with customer services who finally agreed that half a sofa could not be reupholstered – and, verbally, said they’d cover the whole suite.
“Last week I received an email from management now reneging on the offer and instead offering a small amount of money that will deem my sofa unfit to use as it won’t cover either a reupholster or new sofa. Where do I stand?”
Reader Maureen sent us a photo of the ruined sofa
Our cost of living specialist Megan Harwood-Baynes replied…
You sent me further details of your complaint, including photographs and your correspondence with Johnsons (the bits that have been in writing).
I can see in your email correspondence with Johnsons that they will not pay what you say is required to reupholster the whole sofa. They say their liability to you extends only to the actual covers that were submitted for cleaning.
The original sofa cost you £2,400 eight years ago, and you also have a quote for completely reupholstering it, which comes to £2,560. You (rightly) argue that it’s not really possible to reupholster half a sofa.
Regarding the verbal offer you say was made, Helen Dewdney, a consumer expert at The Complaining Cow, says she always tells people to put everything in writing because there is no evidence when you make phone calls – so bear this in mind going forward.
As for your rights now, your issue falls under the Consumer Rights Act 2005, she says.
“If services are not undertaken with reasonable skill and care and your items get damaged or lost then you have the right to claim compensation,” Helen says.
This can include claiming for the cost of replacing a damaged or lost item, although there may be a reduction for wear and tear of the original item.
Johnsons has already offered some compensation to you (£800). They claim that the age of the sofa means it “holds no residual value” but offered 25% of the original price, an additional £200 as a gesture of goodwill, and a refund of the original cleaning charge.
However, you are not happy with this because you say it is not enough to either fix or replace your “ruined sofa”.
I reached out to Johnsons, and they did not reply, but you told me that two days after I emailed them, they almost doubled the amount of compensation on offer (to £1,500).
You went back to them with a counter-offer of £1,700, they agreed, and you are now finally able to bring the saga to a close (and get your sofa fixed).
Had they not agreed, you could have considered these next steps…
Membership of the Textile Services Association is available to laundries, dry cleaners, textile renters and their suppliers, Helen says.
“If the company you are using is a member, then the TSA offers a conciliation service. You may be asked to prove your claim and, on a loser-pays basis, use the association’s testing service. It also offers an arbitration service if the matter still cannot be resolved.”
However, if the firm is not a member of the TSA – and it looks like Johnsons is not – then you have the option of taking the matter to the small claims court – or equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
“If a company provides no information whatsoever regarding what you should do if you have a complaint, this is a red flag,” Helen says.
“If a company does not recognise that mistakes happen and outlines what it will do if a problem occurs, it cares little for customer service or reputation.”
This feature is not intended as financial advice – the aim is to give an overview of the things you should think about. Submit your dilemma or consumer dispute via:
- WhatsApp us here
- Email news@skynews.com with the subject line “Money blog”
Water company United Utilities has reported hundreds of millions in profit as it seeks to further increase customer bills.
The utility serving seven million customers in the northwest of England recorded £335.7m in underlying operating profits for the first half of this year, up nearly 23% from £271.1m a year ago.
It comes as the firm has requested bills rise 32% to make them among the most expensive in England and Wales.
Money blog: The massive winter fuel payment ‘cut’ no one talks about
The proposed average annual bill would increase to £584 by 2030 from the £443 typical yearly charge in the 2023/2024 financial year. Since April 2023 bills have been upped 6.4% and then 7.9%.
Bills hikes were behind the rise in revenue to more than £1.08bn from £975.4m in 2023.
Other ways of assessing profit were lower than the underlying operating sum. Profit before tax reached £140.6m while after tax profit topped £103.1m for the six months to the end of September 2024, both lower than a year earlier.
Boss’s pay
Bonus and benefits payments worth £1.416m were paid to two executives on top of £1.128m in base pay, according to analysis of company filings done by the Liberal Democrats.
It’s down compared with 2022/2023 when three executives were given £1.6m in base pay and £2.456m in bonuses and benefits.
Read more:
Water giant United Utilities strikes £1.8bn pension deal
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The environment
In a year of record sewage outflows into waterways the company was one of just three firms that met the Environment Agency’s top four-star performance ranking.
United Utilities in July came under investigation by water regulator Ofwat for not meeting its obligation to minimise pollution.
In response the company said at the time: “We understand and share people’s concerns about the health of the environment and the operation of wastewater systems, including combined sewer overflows.”
Pension “mega funds” will be created under government plans to increase infrastructure investment.
Reforms could “unlock £80 billion” of investment, according to Treasury plans, which say fewer but larger funds can get greater returns.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants to imitate the way large Canadian and Australian pension schemes work.
She said it marks “the biggest set of reforms to the pensions market in decades” ahead of providing more details in a speech at Mansion House on Thursday evening.
Politics latest: Farage mocked over ‘rare’ PMQs appearance
Almost 90 local government pension pots will be grouped together, with defined contribution schemes merged and assets pooled together.
This is part of the government’s plan to increase economic growth through investing in infrastructure.
Pension schemes get greater returns when they reach around £20bn to £50bn as they are “better placed to invest in a wider range of assets”, according to the government.
This is backed up by evidence from Canada and Australia, the government argues – with Canada’s schemes investing four times more in infrastructure, and Australia three times more than the UK’s defined contribution schemes.
Rachel Reeves wants to reform pensions. Pic: PA
Pensions minister Emma Reynolds told Sky News larger pension schemes are able to invest “in a more diverse range of assets, including private equity, which are higher risk, but over time give a higher return”.
She said the government will not tell pension fund managers they must invest more in private equity but due to the larger scale they will be able to invest in a “broader range of assets, and that’s what we see in Canada and Australia”.
Ms Reynolds added that a Canadian teacher or an Australian professor is currently more likely to be invested in British infrastructure or British high-growth companies than a British saver, which she said is “wrong”.
The chancellor has said the changes would “unlock tens of billions of pounds of investment in business and infrastructure, boost people’s savings in retirement and drive economic growth so we can make every part of Britain better off”.
However, Tom Selby, the director of public policy at financial company AJ Bell, said: “There needs to be some caution in this push to use other people’s money to drive economic growth. It needs to be made very clear to members what is happening with their money.”
The government says the funds will be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and will need to “meet rigorous standards to ensure they deliver for savers”.
Read more:
Reeves to unveil plans for radical payments shake-up
Chancellor eyes Canada-style pension reform
Reeves to woo Canadian pension funds amid ‘Big Bang’ push
Local government pensions v defined contributions
The Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales will manage assets worth around £500bn by 2030.
These assets are currently split across 86 different administering authorities, with local government officials and councillors managing each fund.
Under the government plans, the management of local government pensions and what they invest in will be moved from councillors and local officials to “professional fund managers”.
This will allow them to invest more in assets such as infrastructure, supporting economic growth and local investment on behalf of the 6.7 million public servants, the government said.
Defined contribution pension schemes are set to manage £800bn worth of assets by the end of the decade.
There are around 60 different multi-employer schemes, each investing savers’ money into one or more funds. The government will consult on setting a minimum size requirement for these funds.
👉Listen to Politics At Jack And Sam’s on your podcast app👈
Businesses cautious – but pensions sector backs plans
Businesses will need to be reassured that the government’s plans are watertight following the fallout from the budget, according to the trade group the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
The CBI’s chief economist Louise Hellem said: “While the chancellor is right to concentrate on mobilising investment, putting pension reform to work for the government’s growth mission, unlocking investment also needs competitive and profitable businesses.
“With the budget piling additional costs on firms and squeezing their headroom to invest, the government needs to work hard to regain the confidence in the UK as a place businesses and communities can succeed.
“Pension schemes will want to operate within a UK economy that is prospering.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
But key parts of the pensions sector gave their backing to the government’s plans, including Standard Life, Royal London, Local Pensions Partnership Investments and the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: “This is about harnessing the untapped potential of the pensions belonging to millions of people, and using it as a force for good in boosting our economy.”
Consumer rights group Which? is suing Apple for £3bn over the way it deploys the iCloud.
If the lawsuit succeeds, around 40 million Apple customers in the UK could be entitled to a payout.
The lawsuit claims Apple, which controls iOS operating systems, has breached UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage preferential treatment, effectively “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using it.
It also claims the company overcharged those customers by stifling competition.
The rights group alleges Apple encouraged users to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while simultaneously making it difficult to use alternative providers.
Which? says Apple doesn’t allow customers to store or back-up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider, arguing this violates competition law.
The consumer rights group says once iOS users have signed up to iCloud, they then have to pay for the service once their photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit.
“By bringing this claim, Which? is showing big corporations like Apple that they cannot rip off UK consumers without facing repercussions,” said Which?’s chief executive Anabel Hoult.
“Taking this legal action means we can help consumers to get the redress that they are owed, deter similar behaviour in the future and create a better, more competitive market.”
Apple ‘rejects’ claims and will defend itself
Apple “rejects” the idea its customers are tied to using iCloud and told Sky News it would “vigorously” defend itself.
“Apple believes in providing our customers with choices,” a spokesperson said.
“Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible – whether it’s to iCloud or another service.
“We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”
It also said nearly half of its customers don’t use iCloud and its pricing is inline with other cloud storage providers.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
How much could UK Apple customers receive if lawsuit succeeds?
The lawsuit will represent all UK Apple customers that have used iCloud services since 1 October 2015 – any that don’t want to be included will need to opt out.
However, if consumers live abroad but are otherwise eligible – for example because they lived in UK and used the iCloud but then moved away – they can also opt in.
The consumer rights group estimates that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70, depending on how long they have been paying for the services during that period.
Apple is facing a similar lawsuit in the US, where the US Department of Justice is accusing the company of locking down its iPhone ecosystem to build a monopoly.
Apple said the lawsuit is “wrong on the facts and the law” and that it will vigorously defend against it.
Read more from climate, science and tech:
The almighty row over climate cash that’s about to boil over
Oil state Azerbaijan is ‘perfectly suited’ to hosting a climate summit, says Azerbaijan
Big tech’s battles
This is the latest in a line of challenges big tech companies like Apple, Google and Samsung have faced around anti-competitive practices.
Most notably, a landmark case in the US earlier this year saw a judge rule that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the internet search market.
The company is now facing a second antitrust lawsuit, and may be forced to break up parts of its business.
Read more: Google faces threat of being broken up
File pic: Reuters
And in December last year, a judge declared Google’s Android app store a monopoly in a case brought by a private gaming company.
“Now that five companies control the whole of the internet economy, there’s a real need for people to fight back and to really put pressure on the government,” William Fitzgerald, from tech campaigning organisation The Worker Agency, told Sky News.
William Fitzgerald at Lisbon’s Web Summit, where he spoke to Sky News
“That’s why we have governments; to hold corporations accountable, to actually enforce laws.”
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway