JD sports returns policy

mighty_hammers

i bought what i thought was a pair of size 6 trainers as a christmas present from JD sports only to discover on xmas day that they had given me a size 5 & a size 6. no problem i thought they will exchange them. go into the shop yday speak to the manager he was happy to swop them for two the same size by doing a refund and new sale until i pointed out that they were now £8.00 cheaper and that was the price i now expected to pay. suddenly he produced a display notice stating they do not do exchanges or refunds untill the 29th, with a disclaimer saying it did not affect your statutory rights. Well a heated discussion then took place as he did not seem to know what my rights were. I pointed out that as i did not have one size 5 and one size 6 foot they were clearly not fit for purpose. He wanted my husband and i to go away and phone his customer service. By now a queue of customers were listening and and we made it quite clear we were in the right legally and were not going anywhere. He went off to phone his boss and surprise surprise he returned after about 5 minutes to say on this occasion they would do a refund and sale price..
I got what i was entitled to by law.. victory for the paying customer.

Proc

You weren't entitled to a refund by law. You sound like a prime, foot-stomping idiot that holds the rest of us up in queues because you like to waste everyone's time quoting your rights (that you don't even understand). The shop was in the right to offer an exchange for the same item of the correct size.

If the price had increased since purchase, would you have insisted that you pay the difference?

This isn't a "victory for the paying customer"...it's just a moron kicking up a fuss and they wanted to get rid of you.

molerat

The op was entitled to a refund as they were supplied with a pair of shoes that were not as advertised nor fit for purpose. Under normal same price conditions an exchange would have sufficed but because of the new sale price a refund and resale at new price would be the sensible thing to do. The manager should be wearing either a "Jobsworth" hat or a fool's hat, can't decide which.

Bamber19

molerat wrote: »

The op was entitled to a refund as they were supplied with a pair of shoes that were not as advertised nor fit for purpose. Under normal same price conditions an exchange would have sufficed but because of the new sale price a refund and resale at new price would be the sensible thing to do. The manager should be wearing either a "Jobsworth" hat or a fool's hat, can't decide which.

the point being made is that the OP wasn't entitled to a refund, which is quite correct. The manager would have been quite correct to offer a simple replacement of the wrong size trainer (which is effectively what he was trying to do)

That said, depending when the OP bought them, it's likely that they did have a right to a refund under the stores own refund policy (presumably a 28 day returns policy like msot stores) but that strictly they would have to wait until the 29th. In that situation common sense does say just give the refund.

molerat

Why was the op not entitled to a refund. The goods supplied did not conform under the SOGA. They were not of mercheantable quality, not fit for purpose and not as advertised. I agree the normal remedy would be an exchange but I still hold that the op was entitled to a refund under the SOGA. I think we all agree that common sense should have come into play here.

missymugwump

The OP was entitled to a refund
Proc there was no need for your comment

NotQuiteNorbert

missymugwump wrote: »

The OP was entitled to a refund
Proc there was no need for your comment

I would have thought that the OP would have been entitled to a refund of the purchase price if they'd been returning the shoes due to them being an odd pair but like Proc, I wouldn't have thought they were entitled to a refund of the current price difference if they were only looking to exchange. That's interesting.

Anihilator

the OP was not entitled to a refund.

The SOGA states repair, refund or replacement.

This is at the shops discretion. the SOGA was being met.

The OP had no right to a refund, they certainly had no right to expect the correct item and a partial refund.

About time Martin Lewis and his cronies were held to account for their misselling of this websites material about the consumer acts.

stugib

Anihilator wrote: »

The SOGA states repair, refund or replacement.

After the goods have been accepted. If you reject the goods, which IMO you'd be entitled to do in this situation, you are entitled to a refund.

dreamypuma

I don't believe the OP was entitled to a refund. The shop was able to remedy the situation.

If the goods had gone up in price would the OP have been happy to pay the extra for replacement goods?

molerat

NotQuiteNorbert wrote: »

I would have thought that the OP would have been entitled to a refund of the purchase price if they'd been returning the shoes due to them being an odd pair but like Proc, I wouldn't have thought they were entitled to a refund of the current price difference if they were only looking to exchange. That's interesting.

Technically they had a refund at the old price and purchased at the new price. If it was put through the till it would have normally come out this way anyway because modern tills cannot sell higher than the listed price. The store manager was just being an !!!!. I am speaking from my experience in retail management and 90% of the time I will side with the store.