Tesco refund pollicy legal?

Freddie_Snowbits

Andy1503 wrote: »

I bought it direct from the Lowry Outlet of Chapelle. Bought on the 11th Dec. I have all the receipts which do state - "We exchange gifts returned within 28 days unused resaleable and with receipt. We do not give refunds for unwanted purchases. Your statutory rights are not affected"

Must say I did ask the sales assistant and she did say I could return it. Maybe I didnt listen carefully enough !!

I have a form for Lady Freda going back 22 years. I wish to now sue the registrar.

RobertoMoir

smcaul wrote: »

Uh, no they are not correct. As long as you can prove the purchase than you are entitled to a full refund (assuming the goods were faulty and not jsut being returned as they were unwanted etc). And proof does not have to be a receipt, it can be a credit card statement etc. This is defined by the SOGA and over rides any store policy that they might try and use.

Except of course there was nothing in the conversation reported to suggest that the goods were faulty.

smcaul

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Except of course there was nothing in the conversation reported to suggest that the goods were faulty.

For the benefit of those who only seem able to skim read:

Originally Posted by smcaul
Uh, no they are not correct. As long as you can prove the purchase than you are entitled to a full refund (assuming the goods were faulty and not jsut being returned as they were unwanted etc). And proof does not have to be a receipt, it can be a credit card statement etc. This is defined by the SOGA and over rides any store policy that they might try and use.

Hopefully this will stop me having to say it for a third time in this thread!!!!!!

RobertoMoir

smcaul wrote: »

For the benefit of those who only seem able to skim read:


Hopefully this will stop me having to say it for a third time in this thread!!!!!!

I can read quite well, thank you for your concern.

My point is that I don't see where the ability to get a refund when goods are faulty means that "no you can't have a refund" is therefore automatically incorrect, as you say is is.

smcaul

The point I was making was about the receipt, and the fact that it is not required if returning due to item being faulty/unfit for purpose etc.

Bamber19

Mate, it's pretty obvious that you simply didn't read the OP properly, had the goods been faulty i'd assume the OP would have viewed this as a material fact and included it, prior to your edited add in the advice of:
"Uh, no they are not correct. As long as you can prove the purchase than you are entitled to a full refund " is wholly wrong based on the facts we have at hand. You've jumped in with two feet and made the massive assumption that it was a faulty item being returned. If it's not, which would be the assumed starting position unless the OP said otherwise then your suggestin that they are not correct is wrong.

RobertoMoir

smcaul wrote: »

The point I was making was about the receipt, and the fact that it is not required if returning due to item being faulty/unfit for purpose etc.

fair enough. And sorry, my reply was a little snippy!

smcaul

Bamber19 wrote: »

Mate, it's pretty obvious that you simply didn't read the OP properly, had the goods been faulty i'd assume the OP would have viewed this as a material fact and included it, prior to your edited add in the advice of:
"Uh, no they are not correct. As long as you can prove the purchase than you are entitled to a full refund " is wholly wrong based on the facts we have at hand. You've jumped in with two feet and made the massive assumption that it was a faulty item being returned. If it's not, which would be the assumed starting position unless the OP said otherwise then your suggestin that they are not correct is wrong.

There is nothing to say that it was not the case either was there? I replied on one particular point, and that was that you do not need a receipt to prove purchase - that was all, why do so many people on this board insist on reading more into peoples posts then actually is there? I corrected one point, that was all.

Bamber19

you didn't correct that's why, jeez you're the one whose reading more into a post than what is there, saying someoene is wrong based on a part of the OP's post that isn't there. We surely work with the facts that are presented to us, not make assumptions and guesses about what isn't said?

The board would be beyond ridiculous if for every situation described someone pipped up with "but that would be wrong if..." and proceeded to provide information on seperate situations that haven't been asked about.

Based on the OP's post your reply is misleading.

You've basically made a wrong statement, realised it's wrong then added in the part about the item being faulty because that's the only way in which your statement could be interpreted as correct and now you likely want to shout to the death that that's what you meant in the first place and arguing that because the OP doesn't say the item wasn't faulty (which again would clearly be material to the post if it was) you are somehow correct to assume that it is or give irrelevant (based on the facts) advice on the off chance that the OP has failed to mention such an important factor. It'd be a bloody long post if I was to address every possibility that the OP hasn't mentioned "Well, she hasn't said that the item wasn't made of Ivory, so perhaps someone ought to bring up the legality of Ivory dealing within the UK?" it was just a typical Vent solicitors post where they want everyone to think they know what they're talking about so bring up something that no-one else would do because it is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Bamber19

Haha I can only apologise, i'm acting all angry about something i don't actually care about.