Damages|In HS’s survey, readers opened up about their harsh laundry experiences. Disputes between consumers and laundries are ultimately quite rare.
That’s about it already more than 15 years, but Kirsi Kivistöä the memory is still vivid: that time the laundry ruined her silk wedding dress.
The case came to mind again when Kivistö read Helsingin Sanomat last week Rita from Jokiwhose precious wedding dress was destroyed in the laundry.
Kivistö still remembers the shock when he dug his suit out of the laundry bag.
“My beautiful dress resembled a fluffy washcloth. The strangest thing was that when I picked up the suit at the laundry, there was no mention that it had been ruined.”
At the same time, we asked readers if they had similar experiences with laundries.
And there were. There were almost 80 responses. Many people said that they had just experienced a hard time handling their wedding dress at the laundry.
Kivistö’s experience is almost identical to Jokinen’s, but the laundry was different.
Rita Jokinen used SOL laundry. Many of those who answered the survey had bad experiences with SOL laundromats.
However, the large number of answers related to the chain in question can also be explained by the fact that the national chain has stores in almost every location in Finland.
However, harsh experiences had also been accumulated from other laundries.
In addition to wedding dresses, men’s suits, down and woolen jackets, carpets, tablecloths and sofa covers had also been washed to ruin. Products had been lost and changed.
Holes may have appeared in the clothes or the lining may have started to tear. One defendant’s jacket had one sleeve mysteriously shortened.
Some of the laundromats’ mistakes are due to pure carelessness. For example, one respondent told about his five-hundred-euro Louis Vuitton scarf, in which the laundry had made a hole by attaching a tag to it with a safety pin.
With many the experiences may have been years ago, but they still haunted me.
Instead of a financial loss, what was left to dig for was rude service or the fact that the laundry didn’t want to admit its mistake.
Kaarina Hakkarainen-Hassi was particularly upset that the laundry worker did not show empathy when Hakkarainen-Hassi’s coat shrunk to a “doll’s rag” during the shop’s processing.
“I was so sad that I cried. The customer service representative rolled her eyes and didn’t even apologize,” Hakkarainen-Hassi recalls.
For Hakkarainen-Hassi, the laundry offered as an explanation that the jacket had “collapsed with old age”, even though it was only five years old and had been used rarely, mostly at funerals.
Hakkarainen-Hassi had washed his coat before: at the SOL laundromat. Then there were no complaints about the washing result.
From Toni Mäki on the other hand, a laundromat has ruined no less than two suit jackets. The reason from the laundromat was that Mäkinen has moths at home and they have eaten the fabric so that it could no longer withstand washing.
“In itself, it’s a strange explanation that these traces of moths have not come up when washed in other laundries, and no signs of moths have been found in my wardrobe,” says Mäkinen.
Mäkinen couldn’t bear to start arguing about it, but changed the laundromat.
“There have been no more moths since then.”
If the laundromat says that it washes the garment according to the washing instructions, the error may also be the manufacturer’s.
Very common consumer disputes with laundries are not. The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority receives dozens of complaints per year related to laundry services.
“So it’s not a problem area,” says the leading expert Henrik Sillanpää.
No particular company is highlighted in the announcements. Often it’s a service error: the stains haven’t come out or the garment has been ruined.
It is difficult for KKV to take a position on them.
“There are stains that won’t come out in any wash. And if the laundromat points to its washing according to Textile’s washing instructions, the fault may lie with the laundromat instead of the manufacturer.”
If the consumer and the laundry disagree, the consumer can request a solution from the Consumer Disputes Board. The textile maintenance industry’s expert board can investigate where the damage originated.
In the current year, the Consumer Disputes Board has resolved four complaints related to laundries: the washing of two wedding dresses, one carpet and one suit. Last year too, there were only seven cases.
The board makes recommendations. A binding judgment can only be issued by the district court.
Some respondents to HS’s survey said that they had had to take their laundry dispute to court – or at least threaten to go to court.
The Consumer Disputes Board deals with a few disagreements between consumers and laundries every year.
Kaarina Hakkarainen-Hassi appealed to the Consumer Disputes Board. It was clear to him that the jacket had been washed too hot, contrary to the washing instructions.
When the laundromat persistently claimed to have followed the washing instructions, the Consumer Disputes Board came to the conclusion that the culprit could not be identified.
Hakkarainen-Hassi threw the jacket into the trash in front of the board.
“I got the feeling that consumer protection is non-existent if the laundry spoils the garment. It is word for word.”
“It was such an elegant jacket. I would definitely still use it.”
Kirsi Kivistö too made a complaint to the board about her tarnished wedding dress. According to Kivistö, the suit should have been dry-cleaned, but it had been put in a regular washing machine at the laundromat.
The laundry reimbursed Kivistö for the washing costs and 400 euros for the value of the suit, which had cost 1,300 euros new. However, the emotional value of the suit was priceless.
“I had thought that I would save the suit for my daughter and if I don’t get one, I can admire it myself in the rocking chair.”
According to Kivistö’s understanding, the laundry in question later stopped operating.
“Maybe Karma took revenge!”
#Damages #laundromat #shrunk #Kaarinas #jacket #rags #claimed #garment #collapsed #age
