Berrin Gursoy takes Louis Vuitton to VCAT over damage to a $3000 item worn once

A luxury fashion lover has taken Louis Vuitton Chadstone to VCAT over claims it sold her a dud hoodie from high-end collection.

A disgruntled customer is in a heated dispute with Louis Vuitton over a $3000 hoodie.

A disgruntled customer is in a heated dispute with luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton over a $3000 hoodie.

Berrin Gursoy, 53, claimed the hoodie — from the highly coveted 2020 Virgil Abloh collection — she bought from the Louis Vuitton Chadstone store had undergone unreasonable ageing after just one wear, while also picking apart the company’s customer service, at a VCAT hearing on December 8.

“It’s a very expensive garment, we know that,” Ms Gursoy said.

“You would not expect anything to age so much in 18 months, especially given that I’d only worn it and gotten it cleaned once.”

“The disappointing thing for me is the response I got from Louis Vuitton. I gave them so many choices but they refused to even look at the garment.”

Ms Gursoy said she purchased the hoodie in early 2020, but due to the extensive lockdown period in Melbourne, only wore it for the first time in December.

“The first time I wore it was at Christmas in 2020, I had put it away before then because we were in lockdown,” she said.

“I had noticed some issues with the stitching on the sleeve when I purchased the item, but it was only minor, so I did just leave it.”

Ms Gursoy said the real problems surfaced when she had the hoodie professionally dry-cleaned in August 2021.

“I took the item to my dry cleaner. He assured me he would follow the wash instructions, as he had taken care of many luxury items in his 40-year career,” Ms Gursoy said.

“When I picked up the item, I noticed bubbling around the hood and the stitching on the sleeve was worse than when I took it to him. This is when I made contact with Louis Vuitton.”

Ms Gursoy said from there, Louis Vuitton had “rejected any form of negotiation or communication”.

“I was dealing with up to 10 different people, and I couldn’t get answers from any of them,” she said.

“If I’d bought a garment from Kmart and showed them a damaged item, they would at least look at it and give me a reason why.”

Louis Vuitton’s client services manager Lucy Gilbert, refuted these claims, telling the tribunal Ms Gursoy had been provided with a quality report on the product, also highlighting the length of time that had elapsed since Ms Gursoy had purchased the item.

“We sent the photos of the garment that Ms Gursoy provided to our quality team in Singapore,” she said.

“This is not unusual or out of the ordinary, it’s our standard internal process. The garment also had a specialist dry-cleaning instruction on it (the F code), which isn’t uncommon.”

“The quality team said the condition is consistent with the wear and tear tolerance for a piece that is over 18 months old.”

Tribunal member Anne Moon was unable to make a definite decision without seeing the clothing item in person, and so adjourned the matter with a stern warning to Louis Vuitton.

“From my point of view, looking at photographs I can’t see the issues properly that are described,” she said.

“But it is a high-cost item, which means the requirements are higher than they would be for a cheaper garment.”

“Even though the quality team have concluded the item is not defective and said there is no quality issue, this may or may not comply with Australian Consumer Law requirements.”

Member Moon further noted the absence of the said quality report from Louis Vuitton “may not be enough” for the fashion house to rely on.

“If you choose to rely on it, that’s your business, but it may not hold up with Australia’s consumer guidelines which includes reference to durability, which you should be aware of,” she said.

Member Moon said an adjournment would give Ms Gursoy a chance to demonstrate the damage to the item, and also give the tribunal a chance to hear evidence from the dry cleaner.

The dispute will be heard by the tribunal in person on May 25 in 2023.