A consumer bought an evening dress from a local retail outlet for €550. After wearing the dress once, the consumer took it for dry cleaning. Upon collecting it, the consumer noted that the colour of the dress changed from gold to silver and that is was torn in certain areas.

The consumer complained about this with the dry-cleaning company who refused responsibility and insisted they followed the cleaning instructions. The consumer then complained with the seller where the dress was bought, who blamed the dry-cleaning company saying other clients had dry-cleaned the same dress and nothing had happened.

The consumer lodged a complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs but unfortunately the conciliation process did not provide an amicable solution. The consumer then opted to submit a claim with the Consumer Claims Tribunal against the seller and the dry-cleaning company.

First the tribunal considered the seller’s testimony, who for the sitting took with her two similar dresses and argued that the dresses were dry cleaned and nothing had happened to them. The tribunal asked the seller where the dresses were dry cleaned but the seller could not provide such information. The seller also said that following the consumer’s complaint she informed her supplier about the damaged dress, who replied that such a problem never occurred with the other dresses.

The dry-cleaning company’s representative explained that when they received the dress for dry cleaning they strictly followed dry-cleaning instructions. After the cleaning process all the glitter fell and the colour changed from gold to silver. The dry-cleaning representative said that after the incident he issued a report and gave it to the seller to pass it on to the supplier. He also tried to contact the supplier directly but did not receive a reply.

The tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the dry cleaner was a professional, with over 20 years of experience. Furthermore, a report was presented by the dry-cleaning company, which explained in detail the cleaning procedure and what had happened to the dress after the cleaning process.

The tribunal agreed that the dry-cleaning company had followed the cleaning instructions and hence should not be held responsible for the damage. On the other hand, the seller did not present any tangible evidence that the dress was not defective. The tribunal argued that there must have been something wrong with the dress that caused the damage during a professional dry-cleaning process.

The tribunal also reasoned that it was normal and expected to dry clean a dress after wearing it. The consumer cannot be blamed and should not be punished for taking such a decision.

Hence, the tribunal concluded that it was the seller who should be held responsible for the damaged dress. Taking into consideration that the dress had been worn once by the consumer, its value was that of a second-hand dress, so the tribunal ruled that the seller should not refund the full value of the dress but pay the consumer €400. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the sitting should be paid by the trader.