Millets wont exchange my broken-when-bought jacket

maysdaddy

I have just had a similar experience at Blacks outdoor shop, which is a member of the Millets group. In short, I returned a Thermos flask bought 6 weeks earlier.(£15.99) It had stopped working, following 5 or 6 uses. Blacks initially refused to replace or refund, saying they would send it back to manufacturer. I stated that under the Sale of Goods Act, I have the right to decide if I want a replacement or repair. After considerable dispute, they caved in, and gave me a refund. This would have been the end of it; but unfortunately, my son (who was standing quite a distance away because of the embarassment factor) overheard one of the assistants calling me a d*ck. (A clue - this does not say duck). I challenged the assistant. He replied "Well what do you want me to say?" I said "An apology would be a great start"
Comments please - should I complain?

jdturk

maysdaddy wrote: »

I have just had a similar experience at Blacks outdoor shop, which is a member of the Millets group. In short, I returned a Thermos flask bought 6 weeks earlier.(£15.99) It had stopped working, following 5 or 6 uses. Blacks initially refused to replace or refund, saying they would send it back to manufacturer. I stated that under the Sale of Goods Act, I have the right to decide if I want a replacement or repair. After considerable dispute, they caved in, and gave me a refund. This would have been the end of it; but unfortunately, my son (who was standing quite a distance away because of the embarassment factor) overheard one of the assistants calling me a d*ck. (A clue - this does not say duck). I challenged the assistant. He replied "Well what do you want me to say?" I said "An apology would be a great start"
Comments please - should I complain?

You're wrong in that you can decide what you want, the store has the right whether to refund/replace or refund.

Yes I would complain about being called a name, its unproffessoional

negg

I stated that under the Sale of Goods Act, I have the right to decide if I want a replacement or repair

I wouldn't complain about that one because the Sale of Goods Act states you are entitled to a replacement or repair. It doesn't actually get to state who makes the decision no matter what people say who have tried to twist the wording without understanding how legal jargon is written.

There is only one exception; that a customer can ask for a refund "within a reasonable time". Of course, "reasonable time" is not defined and open to debate!

For berr.gov.uk:

The Sale of Goods Act states that if customers want to reject faulty goods, they have to do so within a 'reasonable time'. A legal definition of 'reasonable' is not given though - it varies from case to case and could be just a few weeks from the date of purchase.

If a customer rejects faulty goods within this 'reasonable' period, they're entitled to ask for their money back.

You also state that "Blacks initially refused to replace or refund" which is of course is where they are in the wrong. They have to do one or the other. If proven faulty then you are entitled to either a replacement or refund. Since it was under 6 months old, it is up to the shop to prove it was not faulty when sold.

Red_Cat

Reminds me of Dixons. They had terrible customer service too, even when a faulty product was being returned.

neilmcl

jdturk wrote: »

You're wrong in that you can decide what you want, the store has the right whether to refund/replace or refund.

Yes I would complain about being called a name, its unproffessoional

Having said that I would probably have said the same, except making sure that any customers were out of earshot.

neilmcl

negg wrote: »

I wouldn't complain about that one because the Sale of Goods Act states you are entitled to a replacement or repair. It doesn't actually get to state who makes the decision no matter what people say who have tried to twist the wording without understanding how legal jargon is written.

Actually it does state that a buyer cannot insist on the remedy. Ultimately the seller will decide based on what they believe to be the least disproportionate in comparison to any other.

smcaul

neilmcl wrote: »

Actually it does state that a buyer cannot insist on the remedy. Ultimately the seller will decide based on what they believe to be the least disproportionate in comparison to any other.

Will you stop quoting that, it has been proven to be incorrect yet you still mis-lead people by constantly spouting the same old tripe.

Butlers1982

I have just had a similar experience at Blacks outdoor shop, which is a member of the Millets group. In short, I returned a Thermos flask bought 6 weeks earlier.(£15.99) It had stopped working, following 5 or 6 uses. Blacks initially refused to replace or refund, saying they would send it back to manufacturer. I stated that under the Sale of Goods Act, I have the right to decide if I want a replacement or repair. After considerable dispute, they caved in, and gave me a refund. This would have been the end of it; but unfortunately, my son (who was standing quite a distance away because of the embarassment factor) overheard one of the assistants calling me a d*ck. (A clue - this does not say duck). I challenged the assistant. He replied "Well what do you want me to say?" I said "An apology would be a great start"
Comments please - should I complain?

Complain about staff saying something about you- Nah, wouldnt bother.

neilmcl

smcaul wrote: »

Will you stop quoting that, it has been proven to be incorrect yet you still mis-lead people by constantly spouting the same old tripe.

Just because you disagree doesn't prove anything. The Sale of Goods Act is quite clear as is the fact that you're unable to read and interpret a written piece of legislation. It's funny how you seem to pick up just on my posts when there are many others posting exactly the same thing. I will not be drawn into any more pointless discussions with you.