Dreams review: Electric bed base and mattress (not seen together in shop)

Spent over £4,000 on an electric bed as my mobility is deteriorating.
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding my recent purchase of an electric bed frame (£4,000) and mattress from Dreams in Kidderminster. Although the bed and mattress were sold separately, they were purchased together with the understanding that they would be compatible. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and I consider the goods not fit for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015).
The problems I have experienced are:
1. The bed frame is too large for the mattress, such that the mattress slips downwards each time the bed is raised into an upright position.
2. A thin metal bar is required to stop the mattress slipping, but this is now causing a permanent indentation in the mattress fabric and structure.
3. A gap at the head of the bed causes my pillows to fall down behind the bed every night, meaning I wake without pillows.
4. Due to the weight of the mattress, I am physically unable to reposition it each day when it slips — making the bed impractical and unusable as sold.
An inspector sent by Emmiera Group has apparently concluded there is no “fault” with either the mattress or frame. Please note, this inspector did not speak to me during the inspection and left without telling me he was leaving. The report is apparently ‘private’ and I am not permitted to read it. In any event, this misses the key issue: the two items are not compatible together, and therefore are not fit for purpose as required by Section 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Legal Position
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
• Goods must be of satisfactory quality (Section 9).
• Goods must be fit for purpose (Section 10), including any purpose that I made known at the time of purchase.
• Goods must be as described (Section 11).
The bed and mattress in question fail these requirements because, when used together as sold, they are unsafe, impractical, and are already causing damage to the mattress.
As the purchase was made within the last 3 months, I am entitled to a remedy. In this case, I request:
• A full refund for the bed frame and mattress, or
• A suitable replacement/alternative solution that resolves these issues without further cost to me.
Ombudsman have concluded that Dreams have done more than most furniture stores in that they sent an inspector and have offered £50.
They are not pusuing the complaint. Please see images attached for yourself. The mattress is now becoming damaged.
Here is Ombudsman outcome:

In considering your complaint, I must explain that the steps offered by the retailer go beyond what we would usually expect or award in a case of this type. Dreams have offered you both a financial contribution towards an anti-slip mat and the opportunity to exchange your mattress under their comfort-exchange service. These options were made available despite the findings of an independent inspection, which concluded that the mattress and base were performing in line with the manufacturer’s specification and that no product fault was present. The report was provided by a third-party company, who use specialist furniture technicians. I find that the pictures provided of the mattress do not sufficiently challenge the findings of the report, they highlight the same feature which was described as non-faulty in the report. They do not show the mattress slipping, or an issue with the bedframe.

For these reasons, although I fully acknowledge and understand your frustration with the way the mattress moves when the bed is raised, the remedies already proposed by Dreams represent a fair and reasonable attempt to resolve your concerns.

I like my mattress and don't want another; I want a bed frame that fits but this does not come under the 100 nights good sleep guarantee they offered me with the bed - nobody told me that at the time. I will never use Dreams again. They took all my savings and do not care that the bed does not fit in the frame.

View 0 more photos