I wanted to return £12,000 worth of wedding clothes from Matches but it went bankrupt: SALLY SORTS IT

At the beginning of March I bought six outfits for around £12,000 from online fashion store Matches, ahead of a family wedding. I planned to get everyone from the bridal party together in one place to try on the clothes and figure out which looks suited who.

I chose to buy from Matches because they stocked brands you couldn’t otherwise find in the UK – and I felt confident that if the clothes didn’t fit right I could return them under the 14 day returns policy without any hassle.

But a few days later I heard that owner Frasers Group had put the company into administration. The items were unsuitable and had to be returned, but Frasers refused to take them. SH, Kettering, Northants.

Sally Hamilton replies: You contacted me shortly after it was announced on March 8 that Matches had gone into administration – meaning an insolvency specialist has taken control of the company with a view to potentially turning the business around or finding a buyer.

It came as a shock as the company had been acquired by retail giant Frasers for £52 million a few months earlier.

Customers can still shop on the website and those who have made purchases since March 8 can take advantage of the returns policy as before. But those who purchased items before that date, like you, have been told they cannot be helped.

When you tried to arrange the return, you were informed by Matches – as I was when I investigated your refund request – that you were not eligible to get your money back.

An automated response read: ‘Unfortunately, orders purchased before the administration period…are not eligible for a refund. Please do not attempt to return these orders as we will not be able to issue the refund or return these items to you.’

This seemed unfair to me as the law says that any online purchase can be returned if the company has been notified that the buyer wishes to cancel the purchase within 14 days of receiving the goods.

Shoppers have a further 14 days to return items and should receive a refund within 14 days of the company receiving the goods. This is an essential protection for online shoppers as they will not have the opportunity to inspect or try on items like they would in a store.

Your order included ensembles in different shades of yellow from Matches’ own brand Raey. Yellow was the color theme for a family member’s wedding party. Also included in the order was a Paul Smith jacket for the groom, along with some citrus-colored T-shirts.

Since you purchased the items with credit and debit cards, I hoped you would be protected. Credit cards offer Section 75 protection, which is part of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

It comes to the rescue when customers run out of money when something goes wrong with a credit card purchase worth between £100 and £30,000.

The credit card provider is ‘jointly and severally’ responsible for a retailer’s breach of contract, even if it goes bankrupt.

Chargeback is similar, but is offered voluntarily by card providers. They will consider a refund if a purchase worth a certain amount has gone wrong, either with a credit or debit card. Customers generally must notify the retailer before initiating a chargeback within 120 days of the purchase.

You were aware of these options, but were afraid that you would not be covered because you still had € 12,000 worth of clothing in your possession; items you didn’t want but couldn’t return.

I have asked your card provider Nationwide for advice. It said that if you could prove that you had tried to return the items, this could increase your chances of success with the claim.

You did have evidence (including requests for a courier to pick up the items), so you filed a chargeback claim via your Nationwide Visa card. Card providers usually return the money to customers during this period, but if the dispute fails it can be taken away again.

Companies typically have 30 days to dispute a claim. If cardholders don’t hear anything after that time, their chargeback will be considered successful. When I spoke to you last week you confirmed that the application had been successful and that your £12,000 was safe.

A spokesperson for Nationwide said: ‘We are pleased that our customer has been successful with his claim. This is a good example of why we encourage people to pay by credit or debit card where possible, as these offer greater consumer protection if the goods do not show up or do not arrive as described, or you cannot return the items.”

You are considering selling the yellow clothes and donating the proceeds to the charity Citizens Advice to help others understand their consumer rights.

Our insurer has rejected a pet insurance claim for £1,118

We have taken out pet insurance with LV=. In January our fit labradoodle, Dave, became unwell and was diagnosed with kidney failure, with a vet bill of £1,118.

We made a claim but it was rejected because the insurer said he had previously shown symptoms of kidney disease. We disagree. Please help. PL, Diss, Norfolk.

Sally Hamilton replies: Since you’re paying $380 a year for this coverage, you expected better treatment when it came to making a claim for your furry friend.

Dave was generally a healthy puppy, you say, except one day about a year ago when he was an off color and was panting in an unusual way. Routine blood and urine tests by a veterinarian showed that nothing was wrong.

As a precaution, the tests were repeated a month later, but the results were normal for a dog of Dave’s age (then nine). But in January this year, when Dave seemed to have lost his appetite, you became concerned: because he is part Labrador, he usually eats voraciously.

The vet thought he had a virus, but did another blood test to check. It turned out he had a kidney problem, leading to a treatment bill of £1,118.

I asked LV= to reconsider its decision because your vet supported your version of events. Your claim has been agreed to be paid in full.

A spokesperson for LV= said: ‘We have reviewed this case and the information provided by the vet and have reassessed the claim.’