A customer who commissioned a bespoke wig for £3,077 was initially denied a full refund for the item, which she claimed was the wrong color and did not fit properly. The dispute involved the London wig maker, Raoul, and the customer's bank, NatWest, regarding a chargeback request.
The customer ordered the custom wig in August 2025, paying a deposit of £1,455. When the wig was completed in November, she paid the remaining balance. However, she found the product did not match her specifications in terms of color and fit. Despite the salon making three adjustments, the wig reportedly remained unsatisfactory and slipped on her head. The customer then sought a full refund, which the salon declined.
She initiated a chargeback through NatWest for the debit card used in the purchase. The bank initially refunded £1,622 but refused to return the original deposit, citing that the deposit was made too long ago, dating back to August of the previous year.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and match their description. An item can be rejected within 30 days if it deviates from the agreed description. If this period passes, the retailer must be given an opportunity to repair or replace the item. If these attempts fail, the customer may be entitled to a discount or refund.
The customer argued that the extended timeline for wig creation and adjustments, not her own delay, should be considered when assessing the chargeback. Following an appeal, NatWest acknowledged an error in its initial refusal and refunded the remaining £1,455. The bank also issued an apology and sent the customer a hamper of gifts.
A spokesperson for NatWest stated, "We are very sorry that, on this occasion, we fell short of the standards that our customers expect and rightly deserve. We have now refunded Mrs S in full and have taken steps to address the issues identified and strengthen our processes to help ensure this does not happen again."
Raoul, the wig maker, commented, "Throughout our bespoke fitting process, we check the fit with the client at each stage and would not knowingly allow a client to leave with a fit that we felt was inappropriate. The purpose of the multiple consultations and fitting appointments is specifically to ensure that the client is happy with the product and that any necessary adjustments can be made before the process is completed. We are therefore disappointed to hear that Mrs S ultimately felt that the wig was unsatisfactory. However, we believe we made reasonable efforts to address the concerns that were raised with us and offered a further opportunity to return to the salon, which she declined."