River Island refusing to refund even with a receipt!

ellay864

People aren't ganging up to insult the OP...she's been given opinions she doesn't like, has got quite angry/defensive about it and them more people have stepped in to lend their support to the people who gace her the opinions she doesn't like.
She doesn't have the 'original receipt' - she has the receipt for the original item she bought, which she then took back. She is not entitled to a refund, it is down to shop's goodwill. The customer in this case is not right - she has become used to a certain treatment and in this case has not received it. People on here have pointed out realities which may not be what we'd like but are based on genuine rights - customer and retailers.

gozaimasu

Sorry Muffinmaker, but this is what happens on MSE - people see that you haven't been on the site for very long and they just attack and criticise you.

I think you should write a letter of complaint if you feel strongly about it. It's true that your statutory rights don't entitle you to a refund because the item isn't faulty, but I can see why you feel hard done by, given that you had the receipt originally and the rudeness of the manager.

Is there possibly an argument that it isn't fit for purpose because it's too tight on the arms? Probably not because you had the chance to try it on, but something worth putting in your letter. You might as well send it to head office too.

Zandoni

She has the receipt for the first one that she bought, it was marked as returned.

Any reasonable person would allow her to return the goods with that sort of proof.

Ivory_Tinkler

To split hairs even further, the guarantee on the back of a receipt surely refers to the item originally purchased? Then if you take it back to a shop and swap it for another then it isn't the original item and may not be covered by the goodwill returns policy offered by that shop? Just a thought!

Ivory_Tinkler

Zandoni wrote: »

She has the receipt for the first one that she bought, it was marked as returned.

Any reasonable person would allow her to return the goods with that sort of proof.

Sorry Zandoni, if I was a shopkeeper I'd be very reluctant to refund an item with the tags removed in case it had been worn. To say that it is easy to replace the tags is a nonsense as the shop could be retagging a worn item. I tried a top on in Next once and as I put it on I realised it stank of stale sweat and it was still tagged. As I handed it back to the assistant on the changing room door, I brought her attention to this and she admitted it was probably a returned item that had been retagged for sale.

wealdroam

Ivory_Tinkler wrote: »

OP can I ask why you removed the tags to just try the cardigan on?

Looks like MuffinMaker isn't going to tell us why she removed the tags.

Without that little bit of information it is probably reasonable to assume the garmant has been worn.

It is certainly an assumption I would make were I the shop manager and the customer refused that info.

Hintza

Zandoni wrote: »

She had the original receipt

Removing tag is no biggie they can easily be re-fitted by the shop staff.

So she is entitled to a refund.

Codswallop

Freddie_Snowbits

Hintza wrote: »

Codswallop

Copy Cat, come up with something original!

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Absolute Codswallop.

kuohu

I'm eagerly awaiting a movie to be made out of this.

shaun_from_Africa

She has the receipt for the first one that she bought, it was marked as returned.

Really?
I could have sworn that Muffinmaker simply stated that the item had been crossed out on the original receipt. There was nothing to state that "returned" or anything else had been written down.
Using the "logic" quoted above, I could get any old receipt, cross out an item and take anything back to the shop and demand a full refund