Why can’t Lifestyle & Mobility store show compassion after my loss?
A Guardian consumer champion column recounts the case of a Bournemouth reader, JS, who bought a £435 wheelchair from a Lifestyle & Mobility store for her disabled daughter, only for her daughter to die suddenly in hospital before the chair was ever used. Despite the chair never having left the boot of her car, the retailer has refused to offer a refund or accept a return, prompting the reader to appeal to the Guardian for help after unsuccessfully trying to sell the item privately.
The store told the Guardian it only issues refunds when products are faulty or mis-sold, and that it is "regrettably familiar" with such circumstances, though it insisted it takes "no pleasure" in applying this policy. However, its own terms and conditions allow for discretionary goodwill refunds, and when asked twice why it would not exercise this discretion given the exceptional circumstances, the company did not respond. The columnist notes that buying online instead would have entitled the reader to a statutory 14-day cooling-off period and could have saved up to £100, but she had chosen to buy in person to support a local store.
- Bournemouth woman's daughter died before an unused £435 wheelchair was used.
- Lifestyle & Mobility refuses a refund despite discretionary goodwill terms.
- Company did not explain why it won't use its own discretion policy.
New here? Start with this
Buying a wheelchair should be straightforward, but this case turns on what happens when personal circumstances change unexpectedly after a purchase is made. It involves a shopper who bought mobility equipment in good faith, and a specialist retailer whose returns policy is being tested by an exceptional situation. Consumer rights around refunds are central to the story, particularly the difference between products bought online and those bought in a physical shop.
Under UK consumer law, buying online generally gives shoppers a 14-day "cooling-off" period in which they can change their mind and get their money back, but this right does not automatically apply to in-store purchases. Retailers can set their own return policies for shop purchases, though many choose to offer discretionary refunds as a goodwill gesture even when they are not legally obliged to. This is why complaints like this one are often raised in a newspaper's consumer champion column, where readers ask journalists to intervene with a company on their behalf.
This story matters because it touches on how businesses balance formal policy against compassion in difficult personal circumstances, and on how much protection consumers actually have when buying big-ticket items such as mobility aids in person rather than online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to the reader argue that the wheelchair was never used, was still in pristine condition in the boot of a car, and could easily have been accepted back or resold by the retailer at minimal cost to itself. They point out that the store's own terms allow for discretionary goodwill refunds precisely for situations like this, and that declining to use that discretion in the case of a bereaved mother whose disabled daughter died before ever using the chair looks less like sound business practice and more like an unnecessary and avoidable unkindness towards a vulnerable customer at the worst possible moment in her life.
The case against
Those defending a strict returns policy argue that retailers, particularly smaller or specialist ones, need consistent and predictable rules to remain viable, since making exceptions on a case-by-case basis for emotionally compelling stories risks opening the door to disputes over which circumstances qualify and undermines the commercial logic of a no-refund policy on non-faulty goods. They would add that mobility and medical equipment often carries particular resale, hygiene and liability considerations, that discretionary goodwill clauses are meant to remain genuinely exceptional rather than an expected entitlement, and that a firm, evenly applied policy protects the business rather than reflecting any lack of compassion towards individual customers.