Refund for service not done

boniekt

Hi everyone.
My partner decided to pay upfront 200eur for four beauty treatments. Unfortunatelly after first one she got skin irritation, she is probably allergic or so. When she asked to get her money back (150 eur) she was refused. They told her she can spend this money on cosmetics but they won't give money back. What do you think about this? Is there any regulations about situations like this?
Thank you for help.

Walter2016

Unfortunately there is probably no fault with the salon as your partner did not tell them that she may be allergic, so their offer that she can spend the balance on other items in the salon is quite good and more that she is legally entitled to.

seamus

I guess she does have a right for a refund - a contract has been entered into which cannot now be fulfilled through no fault of anyone's, really. It's just one of those things that happened. Like if you had paid a builder in advance to build an extension, but then your planning was refused, the builder couldn't just keep the money.

So she would have a right to a refund, but the salon would likely have the right to deduct any reasonable expenses incurred up to this point.

boniekt

That's logical what you writing seamus. But there is no good will from the owner. First she said that this money is already processed by accountant, now she want to show her regulations based on which she has to make refund. And I don't know where to look.

njs030

boniekt wrote: »

That's logical what you writing seamus. But there is no good will from the owner. First she said that this money is already processed by accountant, now she want to show her regulations based on which she has to make refund. And I don't know where to look.

There isn't any regulations saying she has to give a refund. The only grounds for refund of a service would be if the product was faulty which it isn't - your girlfriend is allergic which isn't really their fault.

They've offered her a reasonable alternative which is fair, she could get different treatments to the same value or cosmetics.

SarahMollie

Could you not argue that if an alergic reaction was possible, that your partner should have been patch tested before handing over any money?

This is standard for waxing, hair colour, lash extensions....loads of beauty treatments really. You could argue that she was irresponsible to sell something upfront without first checking if your partner would have a reaction.

The other thing you could do is tell the salon that you plan to leave a negative 1* review on their facebook page, explaining how disappointed you are with their lack of flexibility - that said be careful not to say anything that isnt factually correct. Its probably a grey area legally, but from a customer services point of view, its not a good look.

njs030

SarahMollie wrote: »

Could you not argue that if an alergic reaction was possible, that your partner should have been patch tested before handing over any money?

This is standard for waxing, hair colour, lash extensions....loads of beauty treatments really. You could argue that she was irresponsible to sell something upfront without first checking if your partner would have a reaction.

The other thing you could do is tell the salon that you plan to leave a negative 1* review on their facebook page, explaining how disappointed you are with their lack of flexibility - that said be careful not to say anything that isnt factually correct. Its probably a grey area legally, but from a customer services point of view, its not a good look.

The patch test is a good point Sarah.
That's a good idea op they should have done that definitely!

jimmycrackcorm

seamus wrote:

I guess she does have a right for a refund - a contract has been entered into which cannot now be fulfilled through no fault of anyone's, really. It's just one of those things that happened. Like if you had paid a builder in advance to build an extension, but then your planning was refused, the builder couldn't just keep the money.

I don't think you are correct. Consider for example that you book a hotel room paying up front and then don't turn up. Should the hotel lose out for no fault of their own?

ted1

seamus wrote: »

I guess she does have a right for a refund - a contract has been entered into which cannot now be fulfilled through no fault of anyone's, really. It's just one of those things that happened. Like if you had paid a builder in advance to build an extension, but then your planning was refused, the builder couldn't just keep the money.

So she would have a right to a refund, but the salon would likely have the right to deduct any reasonable expenses incurred up to this point.

Rubbish.

endofrainbow

any salon worth it's salt would have done a patch test.

boniekt

She went for mesotherapy (as far as I remember, can't confirm it as she's in work at the moment), so I'm not really sure they should have made a patch test or no.
I won't win this probably, as there is no good will from the owner she will get this money back in items they're selling. But it's not looking good from the customer care point of view. I've learnt happy client will tell 5 others about experience but unhappy will inform 15.

Walter2016

boniekt wrote: »

She went for mesotherapy (as far as I remember, can't confirm it as she's in work at the moment), so I'm not really sure they should have made a patch test or no.
I won't win this probably, as there is no good will from the owner she will get this money back in items they're selling. But it's not looking good from the customer care point of view. I've learnt happy client will tell 5 others about experience but unhappy will inform 15.

I'd disagree - the salon is allowing the balance to be used on other products. They don't actually need to offer this.

Goodwill is a two-way street - you need to show some goodwill, accept that it is not the fault of the salon and accept their goodwill of allowing you spend the balance on other products in the salon.

L1011

ted1 wrote: »

Rubbish.

Could you elucidate on this, please? Its not particularly constructive as it stands.

SarahMollie

OK I had to google mesotherapy but to do something involving injections without first patch testing sounds off to me.

Ayuntamiento

Was the procedure performed by some kind of registered medical practitioner (ie. a nurse/dermatologist)? I wouldn't allow a beautician near me when it comes to a (minimally) invasive cosmetic procedure which involves needles.

If they don't have adequately qualified staff performing the therapy then you might have further grounds for complaint.

seamus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think you are correct. Consider for example that you book a hotel room paying up front and then don't turn up. Should the hotel lose out for no fault of their own?

That is slightly different though. In that case, the contract doesn't include the provision that you will actually use the room, just that a room will be made available for your exclusive use on the booked date(s).

In this case, the contract includes four treatments, but it is not now possible for the remaining 3 treatments to be carried out.

I'm not arguing that the salon should be or is on the back foot, but there is a case to be made that the contract can't be fulfilled and therefore a certain amount may be refundable.

There are plenty of reasons why the salon is in the stronger position though - arguably the contract does not require that the purchaser gets the treatments - they can still transfer the 3 treatments to someone else, so the contract can be fulfilled.

They can argue that the upfront purchase constitutes a voucher rather than a specific agreement and are therefore well within their rights to allow the balance to be used on other items in their salon and refuse a refund.

Ultimately it comes down to how far the person is willing to push it. For the sake of €150, going through small claims seems like overkill, especially when there's a good chance you'll lose.

ted1

L1011 wrote: »

Could you elucidate on this, please? Its not particularly constructive as it stands.

The entire statement is a fabricated piece of fiction. There is no right to refund here

Walter2016

seamus wrote: »

In this case, the contract includes four treatments, but it is not now possible for the remaining 3 treatments to be carried out.

The salon is not refusing to do the treatments, so the salon can and is probably able to fulfil their end of the contract. the buyer is pulling out of the contract, hence "legally", no refund is due. As goodwill, the salon is allowing for the balance to be used on other items they stock.

OP should accept this.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

beechwood55

Just googling mesotherapy here and €200 for 4 treatments sounds extremely cheap. €100 upwards for one treatment seems to be the standard price.

rock22

Walter2016 wrote: »

The salon is not refusing to do the treatments, so the salon can and is probably able to fulfil their end of the contract. the buyer is pulling out of the contract, hence "legally", no refund is due. As goodwill, the salon is allowing for the balance to be used on other items they stock.

OP should accept this.

if the customer had an allergic reaction, then the salon can only fulfill the contract at the risk of killing the customer.
As they took no precautions, such as a patch test, before injecting potentially life threatening material into your girlfriend, i would consider suing for malpractice.

Peregrinus

I think if this went to court, you'd have a good chance of the court ruling that the performance of the contract had been frustrated by the emergence of the allergy, and that the payment for the unused treatments should be refunded.

But I have to be a bit tentative about that. The doctrine of frustration of contract is normally invoked in relation to commercial contracts, not consumer contracts, and where incapacity or unfitness is involved, it's usually the incapacity or unfitness of the service provider, not the customer. There's also a line of cases which holds that contracts aren't frustrated by the occurrence of foreseeable events, and it's foreseeable, if not very likely, that someone might turn out to have an allergy or intolerance to a treatment or process that they have never previously tried.

davo10

rock22 wrote: »

if the customer had an allergic reaction, then the salon can only fulfill the contract at the risk of killing the customer.
As they took no precautions, such as a patch test, before injecting potentially life threatening material into your girlfriend, i would consider suing for malpractice.

Bit dramatic there. The op said she suffered "skin irritation", that's a long way short of anaphylactic shock, but don't let that stop you from going to court, I'm sure if you dropped a couple of thousand euro as a retainer, a solicitor would love to do the paperwork for you.

Medications/ointments/cosmetic products are prescribed/bought by the public everyday, some for the first time so there is no history of previous anaphylaxis. It is only after the product is tried that the person, and the provider, can know going forward that they are allergic and not to have it again. Pinnicillen has one of the highest allergy rates of any medication and can be fatal in extreme cases but it is still the most widely used antibiotic and is regularly prescribed as a first time antibiotic, if the person has a reaction, then it is not prescribed again.

From a consumer point of view, the salon provided the treatment and will continue to do so as agreed, the op just can't have it without her skin being irritated, unless the product is defective that is not the salons fault. From a PR viewpoint, they probably should have given her back €100 as a gesture of goodwill but they don't have to. They were good enough to offer store credit, it's a salon, surely there is something else in there she would like?

Op, was your girlfriend given any literature about the treatment by the salon? It seems that swelling and irritation of the skin is a common side effect and is not dependent on the person being allergic to it. A quick look at a few websites showed that all of them warned of possible swelling/soreness for 5-7 days after treatment.