County Court in Bristol grants £129 refund for vacuum that stopped charging after eleven days

The County Court in Bristol has ordered Bramble Home Supplies Ltd to refund Leanne Foster £129 in exchange for the return of a cordless vacuum and its charging kit. Foster sought her purchase price back after reporting that the vacuum stopped charging after eleven days of ordinary use. The court granted the refund, with no additional monetary award.

The dispute turned on whether an early charging failure justified repayment when its technical cause remained uncertain. Bramble blamed an unsuitable or physically broken charger and customer use; Foster said she had used the charger supplied with the vacuum.

The receipt established the purchase on 6 May 2026 and the £129 price, both accepted by the parties. It did not prove that the vacuum later failed, which charger Foster used at home or what caused the problem.

Foster still had to support her claim. The court treated her statements as attributed accounts, not separate admitted witness testimony, but accepted her account on balance because it was firsthand, specific and consistent. Her acknowledgement that she had no further independent records or witnesses supported its reliability without supplying technical proof.

A crucial distinction concerned the return-counter note and refusal email. Although both were described in submissions, neither was presented as an exhibit. The court therefore did not treat the alleged matching charger code or absence of a test with another charger as established documentary facts.

Bramble’s explanation was also unconfirmed. It gave no specific staff observations or test results showing that customer use, rather than a product problem, caused the failure. That uncertainty did not outweigh Foster’s accepted account of failure during ordinary use.

Applying the supplied rules on consumer promises and remedies matching the harm, the court found that repayment of the purchase price against return of the items matched the proven loss. General assertions about staff training and the vacuum’s condition when sold did not answer the evidence of early failure.

Foster said she returned the vacuum and charger together on 17 May. She relied on the receipt and her account, while acknowledging that the receipt did not independently establish which charger she had used or why the vacuum failed. She argued that Bramble had refused a refund without confirming its charger explanation.

Bramble sought dismissal of the refund request. It referred to staff examination, training, a matching charger model code and an 18 May refusal email. It also argued that eleven days of effective use supported its position that the vacuum was not faulty.

The purchase comprised the vacuum and its supplied charging kit. Foster’s requested remedy was straightforward: repayment of £129, with Bramble keeping the returned items.

The judgment resolves that refund claim without identifying the precise technical fault. It rests on the accepted account of early failure and the evidence available, not a verified finding about charger compatibility or a documented diagnostic test.