Campaign for change in customer rights law

philwatts

pendulum wrote: »

You seem to just want to pass the blame from the family member who lost her receipt on to the retailers. I'm sorry it's not what you want to hear but the law doesn't need changing and retailers don't need to change their working practices, people just need to keep their receipts safe, it's really not hard.

Another good reason (similar to the shoplifting example) why they require proof of purchase, is that sometimes faulty electrical items are sold off in bulk to people that may be able to fix them or use them for parts. If those people could just take the faulty items back into a store without any proof of purchase and get a working replacement then the retailer would be in trouble.

Do you know where they send these faulty items then?

unholyangel

philwatts wrote: »

Can't understand why so many people have negativity towards what I imagine would be a popular concept. Obviously you all keep receipts and know exactly where to get your hands on them. I will just have to throw it in the bin then. A waste of my mothers £50.

The thing about this forum is that its based on consumer rights and not consumer wants

There are MANY genuine reasons why a retailer would ask for POP (ie theft, to prove the date it was purchased etc). Sure it would be great if they just did what we all wanted but then we'd end up paying for it anyway as the company would have to adjust their prices to cover their losses.....losses which would include giving refunds/repairs/replacements to people who didnt pay for the item in the first place (shoplifters).

neilmcl

philwatts wrote: »

If customer return policy is dictated by the fact that an item may have been nicked what chance have consumers really got. I am not asking for my money back, I am wanting an exchange of faulty goods. I would have a pretty big bravado to go into PC World and complain about a faulty item that I nicked last week.
Shoplifting defence for present policy - not applicable

Your missing the main point. In order for you to exercise your consumer rights you have to prove that you are the consumer in the first place. This is why proof of purchase is required, it's not that difficult to understand!

philwatts

I will say it again. I am after an exchange of a faulty item that is less than a year old. Shoplifters usually take back faulty items to the store they have nicked it from do they?

shaun_from_Africa

Do you know where they send these faulty items then?

Many retailers sell of returned and faulty items in batches such as this.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Wholesale-Pallet-Electrical-Returns-Job-Lot-/250774255571?pt=UK_WSJL_Wholesale_GL&hash=item3a634f77d3

If the boxes are in good condition, but the items faulty, what would stop people returning them to a store for a replacment?

philwatts

Perhaps they might look after genuine customers then and bin faulty items. Making money from faulty goods that they sold in the first place. Nice!

neilmcl

philwatts wrote: »

I will say it again. I am after an exchange of a faulty item that is less than a year old. Shoplifters usually take back faulty items to the store they have nicked it from do they?

And I will repeat - Unless you can prove you are the consumer via proof of purchase, you're entilted to NOTHING!

philwatts

I know that. That's my argument.

shaun_from_Africa

Shoplifters usually take back faulty items to the store they have nicked it from do they?

No.
But one of the reasons they don't is because they don't have proof of purchase.

You can argue as much as you like, but most people accept the fact that it is reasonable for retailers to expect you to be able to prove that the item was purchased from them, which is why they provide a receipt whenever you buy an item.

BoGoF

And this weeks nomination for Tool Academy is........