Company refuses to refund bereaved family after grandmother died before using new mobility scooter (From Darlington and Stockton Times)

Simples!!! Now they are named and shamed , bet they take a dent in their takings when people find out what low life scum they are.

im not being heartless, but why should they, at the the end of the day its a business, and given the type of business it is, imagine if they refunded all customers who had died, they wouldnt have a business

The scooter is widely available on the internet from UK websites for £675. Since the lady was disabled she needed have paid the VAT.

Poor customer service and expensive price too.

Bainbridge Mobility have done nothing wrong and do not deserve bad press. The mobility scooter was bought in good faith by the client. Their is nothing wrong with the product and it is fit for purpose. The fact that the client has passed away is not the fault of the company and while the family of the client are no doubt grieving over the loss of their loved one the clients purchase remains a purchase and becomes part of her estate to be passed on to whoever the client choose to leave her estate to in her will.

Do the family want the supermarket to take back her grocery shopping because she hasn't used any of that too?

Bainbridge mobility is a company like any other that exist to make a meagre profit in financially challenging times. While I sympathise with the families loss I don't agree with them giving a company bad press.

Seems a shame the company weren't compassionate enough to offer to put the scooter up for sale in their shop on behalf of the family on a sale or return basis to help the family with funeral and other costs.
Surely, if it was up for sale in MINT unused condition somebody else might buy it, all be it a little less that full price!
But there again, they've already had a bite of the cherry so is it a case of "up yours Jack - I'm alright" ???

There's a way out of the bad press if they put some thought into it. They could refund the family and donate the scooter to a care home or hospital they would appreciate it a lot. The company then is refunding a grieving family and helping the community!

George BA wrote:
The scooter is widely available on the internet from UK websites for £675. Since the lady was disabled she needed have paid the VAT.

Poor customer service and expensive price too.

Not only is buying a mobility product on line not the correct way to buy one because the use can not be assessed to make sure they are buying the correct product and that they are safe to use it. in most manufactures hand book they will void warranties if the product is miss sold via the internet.
The cost of having a shop and doing the job correctly obviously means the product will cost more.
not to mention the fact that if the customer ever need a repair then they will come out to repair it and not ask you to post it back to them at a cost of around £50 each way.

Why is the Echo criticising a company when it has done nothing wrong? Why should a company lose out just because the old dear has passed away? Why don't the family sell it on eBay instead of whinging to the local rag?

If I die before I next settle my newspaper bill or empty the contents of my fridge - will the echo or Sainsbury respectively scrap the bill or refund the price of the uneaten food? Of course not and no one would expect them to.. And the difference is....

What a dirty, greedy company. Their greed and lack of compassion is exactly what is wrong with our world today. I hope people refuse to buy from them now and they go bust.

To be honest, I have to side with the company here. They have honoured their part of the arrangement and the deceased woman has honoured her part. What happens after has nothing whatsoever to do with the company. Any goodwill that may have come has surely gone out the window with the family bad mouthing them to the press.

I bought a new pair of shoes last week then would you believe before i had a chance to wear them, i cut off one of my legs at the knee in a bizarre gardening accident on Monday. I rang Clarks and do you know what the heartless, greedy company said? They wont take one of the shoes back and give me a 50% refund.

Well the relatives could put an advert in The Echo and sell it that way.

But the company has done nothing wrong. As the goods were delivered in good faith.

littled wrote:
There's a way out of the bad press if they put some thought into it. They could refund the family and donate the scooter to a care home or hospital they would appreciate it a lot. The company then is refunding a grieving family and helping the community!

HEY . That is the way business should be done !. I for one found this system very rewarding in long term and it cost me no more than a GREATER profit at the end of year !!!. I am sure this company could have done more to help this family,,and also help itself.

Sad to hear the lady has died however the company has every right to refuse to reimburse the family...the family should simply sell it on as second hand and hope to get something close to what the lady paid for it

The family seem to be grieving more for the cost of the chair than for the old lady

Shame on you Bainbridge Mobility....but what really concerns me is some of the heartless comments on here, having a severely handicapped son myself ......its enough to make me despair of humanity

Shame on the Echo for highlighting this story! All this company are guilty of is maybe poor customer service, and if the Echo want to start that one up then they'd probably fill their pages every day!

I suppose it's just possible that 'the 69-year-old, from Thornaby,' had a 62 year old nephew, but she looks a liittle older than that!

The family need to google "distance selling regulations" surely?

My mum spent £1500 on a stairlift my dad used it once but the step wasnt fitted correctly so it was to awkward, he then went into st teresas he died 2 days later, she got no help at all they told her to put it on ebay. all the screws were rusted and rounded off and i had to drill them all out it was a company from hartlepool.

Dear Shop Owner.

If this was my shop i'd be instructing my lawyers to sue the news paper for the total value of me last five years takings.

I'm sure the case would either be won or I'd be receiving a massive apology and five years of free advertising across all of the companies publications.

Some newspapers need taking down a peg or two.

You have done nothing wrong if this was sold from your shop yet I feel like they seek to destroy your company after reading the article.

Just because a reporter places print in quotation marks should not excuse them from being responsible for what's printed.

This is not like buying a tin of beans from Tesco. Items are not routinely held in stock and manufactures don't simply refund once an order has been placed if the customer no longer wants it.

It's a business and they don't have to do refunds, I imagine the paper will be hearing from their lawyers?

Job sorted then.

Littled can buy it from them (see above), then donate it to a care home.

Everyone's a winner.

can't see what the fuss is about , yes it is a very sad time for the family but why should the shop be bad mouthed for refusing to take it back ??
If she had recently bought a new car would the family expect a full refund on that too ?
I personally cannot believe that this "story" has even made it into print .

id sue if i was that company and i hope my kids dont do this to me putting money no thoughts to the poor mother shame on this family they are disgusting

hope the family reads these posts and see how stupid they are

totally back u bainbridge you should sue this family slandering your name .........they are more bothered a refund than thier loss thier poor mum rip

There was a lovely piece in the Echo a while back about a couple who were mis-sold a scooter but couldn't return within the time allowed for refunds.
Eventually it was donated it to DAD, slightly unused.

That's pretty much the most charitable thing that this family could have done.

The very reason NOT to buy local... I'd bet my house if it was, say, one of Richard Branson's companies, they would've refunded after all this fuss.. Not only is buying corporate, usually cheaper, they also usually respond positively to issues raised, and certainly where the media is making enquiries.. These local traders are more often than not architects of their own misery, especially tuppence ha'penny firms like this one...

All this shows is that to the firm in question and those whom agree, money is more important than someone's grief... Technically they can refuse a refund, so they do... Shameful

After an extensive world wide search I can't find any company associated with Richard Branson that sells mobility scooters.

A quick look on company check though reveals that Bainbridges have about £10,000 in the bank and Richard Brandsons companies have multiple billions.

The main way they got those billions was to charge customers.

Another brief google search reveals that lots of people have had trouble obtaining refunds from said companies. Most wouldn't have been entitled but felt the need to gripe via the Internet.

It's business pure and simple. Large or small doesn't really matter. It's the same set of rules.

Except from experience you get a more personalised service from the local people.

I must also add that I've always had great customer satisfaction with every one of the virgin branded companies I've used.

I feel for this family in their hour of need and really wish the echo would pull this article and all of its comments.

Maybe the echo could advertise the scooter for them.

steapuk wrote:
After an extensive world wide search I can't find any company associated with Richard Branson that sells mobility scooters.

A quick look on company check though reveals that Bainbridges have about £10,000 in the bank and Richard Brandsons companies have multiple billions.

The main way they got those billions was to charge customers.

Another brief google search reveals that lots of people have had trouble obtaining refunds from said companies. Most wouldn't have been entitled but felt the need to gripe via the Internet.

It's business pure and simple. Large or small doesn't really matter. It's the same set of rules.

Except from experience you get a more personalised service from the local people.

I must also add that I've always had great customer satisfaction with every one of the virgin branded companies I've used.

I feel for this family in their hour of need and really wish the echo would pull this article and all of its comments.

Maybe the echo could advertise the scooter for them.

You miss my point... I wasn't saying virgin sell scooters, but merely making the point that large companies react more positively than small local one's in these situations.. That's an unequivocal fact..

What money any company has in the bank makes no difference to the customer..

Only a fool would think to himself "Oh, I'll buy this scooter from this local firm, even though they're twice the cost with a terrible returns policy because they'll have less in the bank"

Of course not all big chain companies are great, but when you deal with, say, Amazon, it's a comfortable and secure experience which is why more and more people use them... Costco is another example and in my opinion , by far the best for returns...

My family once bought a balloon flight experience from one of these 'local' companies from Consett.. They're very quick to use the fact that they're local and offer a personal heartwarming experience, the very reason we used them, however, after a cancellation, the old man had to go into hospital for some time.. When he was fit and well again, we tried to rebook, but the voucher had expired by ONE day! Absolutely no chance.. Technically they could do it, so the self serving lady made sure she did.. Basically we gave them 150 quid for nothing in return.. Horrible people, horrible company and A good example of the way some of these 'local' services operate...

The company has no morals. Plain and simple. No, it doesn't have to take the scooter back, but should it? You're **** right it should. For the sake of £850 their reputation is now badly tarnished. I hope it was worth it.
RIP to Mrs Robinson and all the best to her family.

The true fact is.. In the view of the company in question and those who agree with what they've done.. The money is more important than the family's grief and the loss of the scooters recipient... Simple as that...

Anyone commenting saying the company should offer a refund and be stuck with a personalised mobility scooter clearly knows nothing about how hard it is to run a small business.

For every opinion there is an equal or opposite reaction.

Lets just get back on track and spare a thought for the family.

This is and always was between them and the shop and didn't need broadcasting.

Rt. Hon. DJ wrote:
The company has no morals. Plain and simple. No, it doesn't have to take the scooter back, but should it? You're **** right it should. For the sake of £850 their reputation is now badly tarnished. I hope it was worth it.
RIP to Mrs Robinson and all the best to her family.

What rubbish. You try running a small business and see how you would feel if a special order item was supplied and then the customer decided they didnt want it.
The reputation of the company is only tarnished because the Echo jumped on the bandwagon of supporting the family. Any right thinking person would agree that the company has done nothing wrong and cant be expected to take a hit because of the unfortunate death of the woman.
Poor journalism again from the Echo.

Tom topper

I got your point exactly and gave it the foolish answer it deserved.

Big companies make problems go away with cash. Small concerns can't afford to do that.

That's far from a personal service.

You can't ride to the shops on a £20 note.

outragedofmiltonkeyn
es wrote:
Anyone commenting saying the company should offer a refund and be stuck with a personalised mobility scooter clearly knows nothing about how hard it is to run a small business.

I ran my own concern for many years and disagree with that.. I always found good, ethical and fair business reciprocates itself.. Even though it may not be apparent at the time.. This company has probably lost an unknown quantity in future sales as the story will float around for many years.. Wheras they could have easily capitalised on the situation in hand and became a good reputable local company in the process.. At a cost of reselling the machine at ex display price, only losing a couple of hundred quid... No speculation .. this is why small companies don't grow...

steapuk wrote:
Tom topper

I got your point exactly and gave it the foolish answer it deserved.

Big companies make problems go away with cash. Small concerns can't afford to do that.

That's far from a personal service.

You can't ride to the shops on a £20 note.

You obviously lack the necessary foresight required by any business to flourish.. Speculation is what keeps a company growing... A small concern couldn't afford NOT to do it, as now their sales will drop and they'll have a stigma attached also.. This is why they're small, because they have your shortsighted, short term, money only attitude... And there's nothing more foolish than that...

why should they have the loss?(the company) the point here to me is the family seem to care more getting a refund than their loss, getting a refund would be the last thing on my mind.poor mum ....having money grabbers her family

And would the northern echo have reported that kind gesture.

He'll no!

Because misery sells papers.

I do hundreds of good deeds every year yet haven't had a single mention.

They'll happily charge £100's for advertising though.

Bad news does travel quicker. That's a fact of life.

I bend over backwards to keep customers happy and you're right it does help. But people will always take the pea and it hurts sometimes.

Business owners have feelings too.

Tom topper.

If only you knew me.........

she looks lovely too the sort mum who cared , you say companys name blackened id say shame on her family so soon happy mothers day!

Also, tomtopper why make it personal. Are you not able to enjoy a debate without resorting to schoolboy antics. you'll be telling Miss on me next.

Please refrain from judging others. Especially if your judgement is critical. You are not in a position to come to any "obvious" conclusion regarding my ability to run a business.

I notice you speak of your business in the past tense. I hope everything ended in your favour.

I personally am not driven by the accumulation of wealth or material objects.

The desire to accumulate is why the whole world is going to ruin.

steapuk wrote:
And would the northern echo have reported that kind gesture.

He'll no!

Because misery sells papers.

I do hundreds of good deeds every year yet haven't had a single mention.

They'll happily charge £100's for advertising though.

Bad news does travel quicker. That's a fact of life.

I bend over backwards to keep customers happy and you're right it does help. But people will always take the pea and it hurts sometimes.

Business owners have feelings too.

True in some respects here... However, if one expects positive publicity from a good gesture then it fails to become a good gesture and is merely a cynical attempt to drum up more business....
You're right about negativity and peoples willingness to be more negative than positive.. But I think we're all guilty of that..

steapuk wrote:
Also, tomtopper why make it personal. Are you not able to enjoy a debate without resorting to schoolboy antics. you'll be telling Miss on me next.

Please refrain from judging others. Especially if your judgement is critical. You are not in a position to come to any "obvious" conclusion regarding my ability to run a business.

I notice you speak of your business in the past tense. I hope everything ended in your favour.

I personally am not driven by the accumulation of wealth or material objects.

The desire to accumulate is why the whole world is going to ruin.

I'm not making anything personal.. You initially insinuated that my original comments were foolish, thus I dropped to a level of debate more comfortable with the standard you set...

My only judgement is borne out of the comments/viewpoints put forward into the debate in question... Your previous comment on business acumen lacks any element of speculation, an important facet in business thus indicating a lack of foresight on your behalf.. I don't know who you are, or how capable you may be, I can only 'judge' by your posts...

I do speak of business in the past tense as I've happily took a back step from it all to pursue my own interests, in other words I've retired, and yes most things ended in my favour.. I mostly attribute that to being fair and ethical to those I dealt with, and Indeed, I still have things coming back from positive seeds planted 30 years ago.. That's universal reciprocation for you...

You say you aren't driven by material and accumulative wealth, yet you defend the actions of a firm that so obviously is, a trait which, as you correctly state, is ruining the world... A little more respect and empathy would be much better.. Obviously Bainbridges don't think so...

Accumalative wealth? Have a word. How do you know that the company in question is not surviving on week by week sales? Taking a hit because a family is **** themselves over the cost of a funeral isnt the way to run a small business.

outragedofmiltonkeyn
es wrote:
Accumalative wealth? Have a word. How do you know that the company in question is not surviving on week by week sales? Taking a hit because a family is **** themselves over the cost of a funeral isnt the way to run a small business.

How do you know it is?... Although, judging by the way it treats its customers, it probably is living week by week...

And are you seriously trying to say that they couldn't break even on this unused machine by selling it for what they paid for it...? How could they lose out?

What they don't want to lose is their profit margin, that's the real issue here.. I hope they go under

tomtopper wrote:

outragedofmiltonkeyn

es wrote:
Anyone commenting saying the company should offer a refund and be stuck with a personalised mobility scooter clearly knows nothing about how hard it is to run a small business.

I ran my own concern for many years and disagree with that.. I always found good, ethical and fair business reciprocates itself.. Even though it may not be apparent at the time.. This company has probably lost an unknown quantity in future sales as the story will float around for many years.. Wheras they could have easily capitalised on the situation in hand and became a good reputable local company in the process.. At a cost of reselling the machine at ex display price, only losing a couple of hundred quid... No speculation .. this is why small companies don't grow...

You're missing the point, the story should never have been reported then no adverse publicity would have to be readdressed. It's poor journalism, a lawyer could get this story retracted and an apology issued. It's sad for the family and I feel their pain but I don't feel the company have acted morally or legally incorrectly.

The spiel on their website's priceless... Here's some snippets..

"More than 10 years on and our ethics remain unchanged. We have worked very hard making sure that all of our customers constantly get the help and support they need, and through this we have not only gained their trust, but also the trust of their friends and family. Speak to any of our friendly, trained staff and you will quickly appreciate what I am saying. We offer unbiased advice with absolutely no obligation, or fear of any pressure sales which sadly seems to be normal practice for many companies"

".However, in the very unfortunate event of having a problem with one of our products, you can rest assured that we will deal with it promptly and efficiently. As we are a company which only supplies locally, our own service engineers are always nearby and can be with you quickly in an emergency.
We are a local, family run business and our reputation means everything to us. "

"Unlike many other Mobility and Access Equipment suppliers, when we say we offer a full Aftersales Service, we mean it! "

Pricenator wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

outragedofmiltonkeyn


es wrote:
Anyone commenting saying the company should offer a refund and be stuck with a personalised mobility scooter clearly knows nothing about how hard it is to run a small business.

I ran my own concern for many years and disagree with that.. I always found good, ethical and fair business reciprocates itself.. Even though it may not be apparent at the time.. This company has probably lost an unknown quantity in future sales as the story will float around for many years.. Wheras they could have easily capitalised on the situation in hand and became a good reputable local company in the process.. At a cost of reselling the machine at ex display price, only losing a couple of hundred quid... No speculation .. this is why small companies don't grow...

You're missing the point, the story should never have been reported then no adverse publicity would have to be readdressed. It's poor journalism, a lawyer could get this story retracted and an apology issued. It's sad for the family and I feel their pain but I don't feel the company have acted morally or legally incorrectly.

I ain't missing any point... Technically the company can tell them to p**s off if they want to.. And they have pretty much done so..

But they're not exactly the 'ethical' company they profess to be, and people should know..

The story is the truth, thus no need for an apology or retraction.. No legal basis for any action.. You can't stop people writing the truth in this country, not yet anyway.. 5 stars to the Northern Echo I say

The firm did deal ethically with their customer. The contract was with her; not her, her family, the neighbour's cat, Uncle Tom Cobley and anyone else who might have known her. She is now dead, therefore: end of contract.

Stories like this will polarise opinion. The article shows a photo of the deceased and tries to demonise the Mobility Scooter provider, but they have done nothing wrong from a legal point of view.

The family seem to consider public emotional blackmail as appropriate action to get the cost of the scooter refunded 'to part cover the costs of the funeral'. But there is no obligation on the part of Bainbridge Mobility to do so, provided the scooter was sold in good faith and is not faulty.

Which leaves a nastier taste in the mouth, the actions (or inaction) of the company or the action of the family? In all honesty, I feel the family’s action does. It can hardly be considered respectful to the memory of the deceased.

I bought a wheelchair for my first wife when she was terminally ill, it cost me a few hundred quid and we didn’t use it very much. It did enable my wife to get out and about however, and contributed hugely to her quality of life in her last few weeks. Money well spent. After she died, the right thing to do was to donate the wheelchair to the hospice where my wife spent some weeks, for the benefit of others. It was one of many donations I made, simply because I considered any financial gain from the proceeds of my late wife’s possessions to be morally inappropriate.

Now unfortunately Mrs Robinson was not able to use her scooter, but it was bought in good faith and intended for her use. I see no obligation, moral or otherwise, on the part of Bainbridge Mobility Ltd to be expected to offer a refund in full or part and take the scooter back.

Going public with the story certainly is not the right course of action. Would Mrs Robinson wish to be dragged into the middle of this? I suspect not.

i think the comments about this poor lady and her family are disgusting and people should have more respect as they av stated they need the money towards her funeral it cost a thousand pound to release a body and if they dont have the money for that then they are going to do what they can to do that would use like to think that one of your parents where laid roting away

I think if only one lesson needs to be learned from this tragedy it's that people need to plan for the end of their lives. No one except a child should leave this world without having made financial provision. Plans are available for around £10 a month that cover the cost of a basic send off once you've paid in for two years.

There are also grants available to help with costs, see

https://www.gov.uk/f
uneral-payments/over
view

darlington80 wrote:
i think the comments about this poor lady and her family are disgusting and people should have more respect as they av stated they need the money towards her funeral it cost a thousand pound to release a body and if they dont have the money for that then they are going to do what they can to do that would use like to think that one of your parents where laid roting away

Good grief, next thing you'll be saying is ''order the flowers,and the cars, oh and maybe a nice gathering at the local pub afterwards...send the bill to Bainbridges'' give your head a shake!!

tomtopper wrote:

Pricenator wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

outragedofmiltonkeyn es wrote: Anyone commenting saying the company should offer a refund and be stuck with a personalised mobility scooter clearly knows nothing about how hard it is to run a small business.

I ran my own concern for many years and disagree with that.. I always found good, ethical and fair business reciprocates itself.. Even though it may not be apparent at the time.. This company has probably lost an unknown quantity in future sales as the story will float around for many years.. Wheras they could have easily capitalised on the situation in hand and became a good reputable local company in the process.. At a cost of reselling the machine at ex display price, only losing a couple of hundred quid... No speculation .. this is why small companies don't grow...

You're missing the point, the story should never have been reported then no adverse publicity would have to be readdressed. It's poor journalism, a lawyer could get this story retracted and an apology issued. It's sad for the family and I feel their pain but I don't feel the company have acted morally or legally incorrectly.

I ain't missing any point... Technically the company can tell them to p**s off if they want to.. And they have pretty much done so.. But they're not exactly the 'ethical' company they profess to be, and people should know.. The story is the truth, thus no need for an apology or retraction.. No legal basis for any action.. You can't stop people writing the truth in this country, not yet anyway.. 5 stars to the Northern Echo I say

You did miss the point, you said in order to get some good publicity back, they wouldn't need to do that without first having some bad publicity. The article calls the company heartless, that's bad journalism.

its slander

loan_star wrote:

Rt. Hon. DJ wrote:
The company has no morals. Plain and simple. No, it doesn't have to take the scooter back, but should it? You're **** right it should. For the sake of £850 their reputation is now badly tarnished. I hope it was worth it.
RIP to Mrs Robinson and all the best to her family.

What rubbish. You try running a small business and see how you would feel if a special order item was supplied and then the customer decided they didnt want it.
The reputation of the company is only tarnished because the Echo jumped on the bandwagon of supporting the family. Any right thinking person would agree that the company has done nothing wrong and cant be expected to take a hit because of the unfortunate death of the woman.
Poor journalism again from the Echo.

.......in your opinion. Think yourself lucky it's not your family that's affected. You'd be singing a completely different tune if it was. Remember to learn the meaning of morality and what it's like to function as a decent human being while you're at it.

Pricenator wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Pricenator wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

outragedofmiltonkeyn es wrote: Anyone commenting saying the company should offer a refund and be stuck with a personalised mobility scooter clearly knows nothing about how hard it is to run a small business.

I ran my own concern for many years and disagree with that.. I always found good, ethical and fair business reciprocates itself.. Even though it may not be apparent at the time.. This company has probably lost an unknown quantity in future sales as the story will float around for many years.. Wheras they could have easily capitalised on the situation in hand and became a good reputable local company in the process.. At a cost of reselling the machine at ex display price, only losing a couple of hundred quid... No speculation .. this is why small companies don't grow...

You're missing the point, the story should never have been reported then no adverse publicity would have to be readdressed. It's poor journalism, a lawyer could get this story retracted and an apology issued. It's sad for the family and I feel their pain but I don't feel the company have acted morally or legally incorrectly.

I ain't missing any point... Technically the company can tell them to p**s off if they want to.. And they have pretty much done so.. But they're not exactly the 'ethical' company they profess to be, and people should know.. The story is the truth, thus no need for an apology or retraction.. No legal basis for any action.. You can't stop people writing the truth in this country, not yet anyway.. 5 stars to the Northern Echo I say

You did miss the point, you said in order to get some good publicity back, they wouldn't need to do that without first having some bad publicity. The article calls the company heartless, that's bad journalism.

No, I missed no point... You need to read the posts and articles more thoroughly before putting your own spin on them...

At no point have I quoted "In order to get their publicity back".. Businesses capitalise on their good will and ethics all the time without having first gained bad publicity.. Just because doing the right thing doesn't get in the papers, doesn't mean it can't be capitalised upon...

The article uses the word heartless in quotations to indicate the family's summary.. It also includes bainbridges comments on the matter.. It's not the Northern Echos opinion... And you only think it's bad journalism because you disagree with it.. I happen to think it's good journalism

Voice-of-reality wrote:
The firm did deal ethically with their customer. The contract was with her; not her, her family, the neighbour's cat, Uncle Tom Cobley and anyone else who might have known her. She is now dead, therefore: end of contract.

So, in that respect I take it that you view wheelclampers for example, as ethical concerns?

Ally F wrote:
Stories like this will polarise opinion. The article shows a photo of the deceased and tries to demonise the Mobility Scooter provider, but they have done nothing wrong from a legal point of view.

The family seem to consider public emotional blackmail as appropriate action to get the cost of the scooter refunded 'to part cover the costs of the funeral'. But there is no obligation on the part of Bainbridge Mobility to do so, provided the scooter was sold in good faith and is not faulty.

Which leaves a nastier taste in the mouth, the actions (or inaction) of the company or the action of the family? In all honesty, I feel the family’s action does. It can hardly be considered respectful to the memory of the deceased.

I bought a wheelchair for my first wife when she was terminally ill, it cost me a few hundred quid and we didn’t use it very much. It did enable my wife to get out and about however, and contributed hugely to her quality of life in her last few weeks. Money well spent. After she died, the right thing to do was to donate the wheelchair to the hospice where my wife spent some weeks, for the benefit of others. It was one of many donations I made, simply because I considered any financial gain from the proceeds of my late wife’s possessions to be morally inappropriate.

Now unfortunately Mrs Robinson was not able to use her scooter, but it was bought in good faith and intended for her use. I see no obligation, moral or otherwise, on the part of Bainbridge Mobility Ltd to be expected to offer a refund in full or part and take the scooter back.

Going public with the story certainly is not the right course of action. Would Mrs Robinson wish to be dragged into the middle of this? I suspect not.

Quite a patronising response in my opinion...
The scooter was days old, unused and didn't contribute whatsoever to the lady's quality of life.. And it certainly wasn't money well spent in that respect..

The family need to fund the funeral, and probably aren't as affulent as yourself, thus common sense dictates asking the company if they could return the scooter..

Upon browsing their website , one would most certainly presume Bainbridges to more than helpful in such a situation, as they try and capitalise on how understanding they are..

Bainbridges would only lose their profit in this case, nothing else.. And seeing as I, and no doubt many others find their behaviour disgusting, it certainly does warrant the family going public..

They may be under no obligation to return the scooter, but they have to remember nobody's under any obligation to buy from them, and I certainly hope they don't...

Rt. Hon. DJ wrote:

loan_star wrote:

Rt. Hon. DJ wrote:
The company has no morals. Plain and simple. No, it doesn't have to take the scooter back, but should it? You're **** right it should. For the sake of £850 their reputation is now badly tarnished. I hope it was worth it.
RIP to Mrs Robinson and all the best to her family.

What rubbish. You try running a small business and see how you would feel if a special order item was supplied and then the customer decided they didnt want it.
The reputation of the company is only tarnished because the Echo jumped on the bandwagon of supporting the family. Any right thinking person would agree that the company has done nothing wrong and cant be expected to take a hit because of the unfortunate death of the woman.
Poor journalism again from the Echo.

.......in your opinion. Think yourself lucky it's not your family that's affected. You'd be singing a completely different tune if it was. Remember to learn the meaning of morality and what it's like to function as a decent human being while you're at it.

I dont need any lectures from people like you thats for sure.
Lets look at this another way, had the lady in question bought a brand new 50" 3D TV would the family be trying to make the shop take it back? They wont need it as they have TVs already! Bet your bottom dollar they'd be fighting over who gets it or who can flog it on. Why cant they flog the scooter on too?

what an odd fellow you are tomtopper - why would I think that wheelclampers are ethical? Where is the analytical link? To understand the darker recesses of your mind - that has enabled your to bring wheelclampers and a firm who have, in selling a mobility scooter to a customer who ordered it, (and thereby fulfilled their side of the contract) together; would be fascinating. Possibly frightening, but certainly fascinating.

It must be difficult enough in these austere times to keep a family business afloat, particularly when you sell something that is a specialist item. I doubt with the availability on the Internet these are hardly flying off the shelves as it is, without this sort of story being printed about them. They are a business not a charity! My family were in a similar position when our Dad died but we gave the unused medical equipment to the local hospice. It never crossed our minds to take it back to the shop for a refund.

Do you people who are vilifying the company have no common or business sense at all ?.

1) The scooter is now used/second hand, therefore cannot be returned then sold as new, it is worth far far less than it was when it was brand new.

If the company takes the scooter back and gives a full refund, not only do they lose the sale, but they have also have a piece of equipment worth far less than what THEY paid for it.

2) It is now part of the lady's estate, if she left a will the scooter will be passed onto her beneficiaries. The people wanting to return the scooter may not have the right to do so,

3) You cannot return ANY goods to ANY company that I am aware of and expect a full refund if the purchaser dies even one minute after completion of the sale. You can't return a car, a suit, a pair of shoes, a leg of lamb, nothing, so why do people expect this to happen in this case?.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
what an odd fellow you are tomtopper - why would I think that wheelclampers are ethical? Where is the analytical link? To understand the darker recesses of your mind - that has enabled your to bring wheelclampers and a firm who have, in selling a mobility scooter to a customer who ordered it, (and thereby fulfilled their side of the contract) together; would be fascinating. Possibly frightening, but certainly fascinating.

Well you seem to think that, irrespective of any grief caused, as long as a company has fulfilled their side of the 'contract' and are under no obligation to show any compassion or come to any compromise in the eyes of the law, they are ethical..
This is exactly how Bainbridges have acted.. Which you say is ethical... But it is also how most wheelclampers act too.. So, by default they must be equally ethical in your opinion...?

SteveHoward wrote:
Do you people who are vilifying the company have no common or business sense at all ?.

1) The scooter is now used/second hand, therefore cannot be returned then sold as new, it is worth far far less than it was when it was brand new.

If the company takes the scooter back and gives a full refund, not only do they lose the sale, but they have also have a piece of equipment worth far less than what THEY paid for it.

2) It is now part of the lady's estate, if she left a will the scooter will be passed onto her beneficiaries. The people wanting to return the scooter may not have the right to do so,

3) You cannot return ANY goods to ANY company that I am aware of and expect a full refund if the purchaser dies even one minute after completion of the sale. You can't return a car, a suit, a pair of shoes, a leg of lamb, nothing, so why do people expect this to happen in this case?.

Do the people defending the company have no common or business sense at all?

1) The scooter has never actually been used and could easily be resold as an 'ex-display' model (or whatever the equivalent is) at the trade price the company bought the machine for.. Alternatively, and in light of their own portrayal of themselves on their own website, they could have sought a compromise with the family, by offerering to sell the machine for them..

2) The family wrongly assumed, probably by reading the company's own literature, that the company were compassionate and returning the machine would have some positive outcome.. They merely wanted to fund the funeral and thought returning a brand new UNUSED machine would be the best option.. The company have their profit and are uninterested.. A bad move for future business as even word of mouth alone can have a detrimental effect on a small business, never mind media coverage..

3)Most companies do have a cooling off period in place, so you can usually return stuff 'one minute' after buying it.. A lot of companies do exercise compassion when someone passes on.. Astute businesses know very well how fatal bad publicity can be, and usually engineer a satisfactory outcome all round.. Rather than being in the position of having to spend double on advertising just to get their profit/loss to the same as before...Duh