Eleven months on, it still won’t pay my dentist’s bill
In July last year, my husband cracked a tooth on lamb meatballs from Waitrose. It had to be extracted at a cost of £160. Waitrose asked us to return the remains of the product and advised that shards of bone had been found. There was an apology in writing, and we were asked to submit evidence of costs. Months of toing and froing ensued. In May, we were told that, as my husband was now considering a dental implant, a solicitor would progress our claim. We have just heard from the solicitor that, as the product was supplied by a third party, we need to pursue the manufacturer. It has taken Waitrose 11 months to conclude it has nothing to do with them.
SB, Bridgwater, Somerset
This is disgraceful. Waitrose’s initial letter clearly implied it would reimburse you. Only when it realised your dentist had recommended an implant costing £3,335 did it take fright and pass the buck. The solicitor’s letter claims that, since Waitrose could not have inspected a sealed packet before sale, it was not at fault. That ignores the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which obliges retailers to provide redress for a faulty product, regardless of whether they are to blame. It’s true, in cases of personal injury, you can also claim against the manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but Waitrose should have pointed you down that path at the outset.
:format(jpeg):quality(80)/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/victor-ciutacu-si-david-popovici.jpg)
:format(jpeg):quality(80)/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/teapa-2024-09-07t235823934.jpg)
:format(jpeg):quality(80)/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/dina-grameni-la-rapid-dan-sucu-hagi.jpg)
:format(jpeg):quality(80)/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sfaturi-economisire-bani.jpg)
:format(jpeg):quality(80)/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/kosovo-romania-liga-natiunilor-06092024-3-scaled-e1725699358393.jpg)