Sports Direct - broke the Sale of Goods Act

matty_art

...by refusing me a refund.


I bought a new Liverpool shirt in Sports Direct in Cardiff Bay on Saturday while on my way to visit a friend in Bristol. I'd worn it for approximately 30 minutes (over a t-shirt) when I noticed that the logo had "bled" so there were some red marks over the white and green parts of the logo transfer. I decided to take it off and take it back into the store.

I visited the store today after my return from Bristol and noticed in order to obtain an exchange. While I was showing the product to a member of staff, I noticed that there was 10% off shirts that day, so I asked for a refund as I was entitled to one within my statutory rights. I was told that they would not give me a refund, only store credit, so I quoted the Sale of Goods Act and said that the product was faulty.

Firstly, the member of staff, who was more like a bouncer than a shop assistant, claimed that it wasn't faulty. Then he said I'd worn it because he could smell it(!), so wearing it demonstrated that it was fit for purpose. I then got them to look at the other shirts on the shelf, and demonstrated that none of the others had that issue.

After this, he said "what's that on the badge then?". I explained that it was presumably an issue in the factory when the transfer had been put on. He said none of the others had it, so what it looked like to him was that I spilled something on it! He said that I would have noticed in the shop had it been on there at purchase, so clearly it had happened since. He did not seem to understand the suggestion that it could have happened in the factory, as he said that “Adidas would have noticed”.

To end a long story, despite me arguing with them about their cheek of accusing me of spilling something, they refused to give me a refund, and just gave me a customer complaint form. I've just got in now and am still a bit fuming over the whole thing, at this point I'd prefer to just get a refund and spend £5 more buying the shirt elsewhere, as I'm so appalled by the behaviour of the company. I actually felt quite intimidated in the store and insulted that I was being accused, in front of other customers, of trying to obtain a refund by deception. I'm going to ring their head office tomorrow and see what happens from there.

So there's a warning, do not trust Sports Direct to offer any refunds for faulty goods, inspect goods thoroughly in the store and be particularly careful if you buy online as clearly any defect will have always happened after dispatch in their opinion!

wealdroam

Use the forum's search facility.
There are plenty of other threads about Sports Direct.

:beer:

michaelvintner

Sports Direct are a sh*t shop and their staff are poorly trained. I am not having a go at their staff they just work for the bunch of plonkers that are the people that employ them. The fault of the company lies with the people at the top.

They are good for a £3 t-shirt or a £4 Polo shirt but if you want anything decent walk straight past these bunch of jokers and into a proper sports shop.

Weirdlittleman

But the only reason your dissapointed is you had changed your mind and wanted the refund as it was reduced. No doubt you would have immediately bought another T-Shirt at a reduced price.

Not what the SOGA is meant for.

matty_art

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

But the only reason your dissapointed is you had changed your mind and wanted the refund as it was reduced. No doubt you would have immediately bought another T-Shirt at a reduced price.

Not what the SOGA is meant for.

So is it acceptable for them to then refuse an exchange because they accused me of damaging the goods with no evidence?

As I now understand from doing some reading, any defect in the goods within the six months from purchase is deemed to have been present at purchase.

And I may have been a little cheeky in seeking a refund but I was entitled to one, and I had had to go out of my way in returning a faulty item to the store, so I thought, well why not, I'm within my statutory rights. I don't then expect to be accused of deception in front of other customers.

Weirdlittleman

matty_art wrote: »

So is it acceptable for them to then refuse an exchange because they accused me of damaging the goods with no evidence?

As I now understand from doing some reading, any defect in the goods within the six months from purchase is deemed to have been present at purchase.

And I may have been a little cheeky in seeking a refund but I was entitled to one, and I had had to go out of my way in returning a faulty item to the store, so I thought, well why not, I'm within my statutory rights. I don't then expect to be accused of deception in front of other customers.

I don't see where they accused you of damaging the goods. Just that they felt it was not actually faulty.

Yes you are correct but the SOGA for faulty goods is repair/replacement/refund not just refund. The SOGA allows goods to be rejected in a reasonable time for a refund but this isnt what you appeared to have asked to do.

I quite frankly think this is of your own doing as they offered you a replacement/store credit. more than acceptable in my view for faulty goods, you simply didnt like it because you were trying a little scam to profit.

matty_art

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

I don't see where they accused you of damaging the goods. Just that they felt it was not actually faulty.

Yes you are correct but the SOGA for faulty goods is repair/replacement/refund not just refund. The SOGA allows goods to be rejected in a reasonable time for a refund but this isnt what you appeared to have asked to do.

I quite frankly think this is of your own doing as they offered you a replacement/store credit. more than acceptable in my view for faulty goods, you simply didnt like it because you were trying a little scam to profit.

He accused me of spilling something on the goods and then trying to obtain a refund by deception in claiming that it was like it at purchase. I was rejecting the goods for a refund in that it was faulty. I did not even know there was a reduction in prices until I went to the store. I really don't take kindly to be accused of lying by a store manager.

pinkshoes

Under SOGA, a replacement would have been totally acceptable. If they offered store credit, why didn't you take it? You could then get another shirt (at the 10% reduced price), and spend the extra on something else.

Weirdlittleman

matty_art wrote: »

He accused me of spilling something on the goods and then trying to obtain a refund by deception in claiming that it was like it at purchase. I was rejecting the goods for a refund in that it was faulty. I did not even know there was a reduction in prices until I went to the store. I really don't take kindly to be accused of lying by a store manager.

Oh were you now.
You reject the goods as either not as described or not suitable for the purpose supplied.

You return them under SOGA as faulty for repair/refund/replacement

Granted I dont think it would be easy for them to fight but you obviously went in their ranting and turned down reasonable solutions as you wanted to get out of the contract. I can see why they were suspicous about your actions.

matty_art

pinkshoes wrote: »

Under SOGA, a replacement would have been totally acceptable. If they offered store credit, why didn't you take it? You could then get another shirt (at the 10% reduced price), and spend the extra on something else.

Basically the whole thing happened very quickly, and I'm not sure that I was even offered the credit before the manager decided to accuse me of lying. He only said that their policy is no refunds, only store credit, and I reminded him of my statutory rights because I thought they were being naughty in claiming that store credit fits into the SOGA, I don't believe it is. He then went on to argue that I had caused the problem so in any case he wouldn't be doing a thing.

matty_art

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Oh were you now.
You reject the goods as either not as described or not suitable for the purpose supplied.

You return them under SOGA as faulty for repair/refund/replacement

Granted I dont think it would be easy for them to fight but you obviously went in their ranting and turned down reasonable solutions as you wanted to get out of the contract. I can see why they were suspicous about your actions.

How do you jump to a conclusion that I "obviously went in ranting"? I was very calm until accused of causing the fault, when I stated my disbelief, as I believe anyone would when being accused of lying to their face. However, not once did I raise my voice or swear during the whole proceedings.