Tesco: Fawlty blue ladybird bag is not a bag for life. Is Tesco policy !!!

Azari

Morglin wrote: »

I can only be sort of impressed at someone that single-minded that they can and will spend this amount of time and energy on a 37p bag............:eek::rotfl:

I would have just thrown it away and bought another one - life's too short for all this nonsense.

That's exactly the attitude that is responsible for a lot of the bad service in this country.

I gather OP would have thrown the bag away but it was a favourite - presumably of a child - so they went to the trouble to try an replace it and the shop began denying him his statutory rights before he'd even asked for a free replacement.

At that point it became a matter of principle.

cyberbob

Azari wrote: »

replacement.

At that point it became a matter of principle.

One persons principle is anothers Stupidity.

Azari

cyberbob wrote: »

One persons principle is anothers Stupidity.

Unprincipled people are often stupid, too.

Money_User wrote: »

Is it me or does anyone else think the op might be slightly mad?

Given you rather obsessive posting in this thread I think you are at least as likely to be mad as OP.

brian_723

The op did the right thing imho ,if we all just accept something that is not fit for purpose just because it is cheap than we would be getting sold rubbish that broke all the time .

steve1980

Jeez, everything going on in the world and you're moaning abouf a 37p back from tesco in which you spent about a tenner in fuel getting.

Moglex

steve1980 wrote: »

Jeez, everything going on in the world and you're moaning abouf a 37p back from tesco in which you spent about a tenner in fuel getting.

It's that sort of brain dead attitude is responsible for so much of what's wrong in the world today.

Can you not see it was not the 37p it was the attitude of the Tesco staff trying to make their 'policy' override the OP's statutory rights?

vyle

Moglex wrote: »

It's that sort of brain dead attitude is responsible for so much of what's wrong in the world today.

Can you not see it was not the 37p it was the attitude of the Tesco staff trying to make their 'policy' override the OP's statutory rights?

Although to assert one's rights, one requires proof of purchase. OP didn't have that, so it's not just Tesco policy, it's also the law that requires it.

Azari

vyle wrote: »

Although to assert one's rights, one requires proof of purchase. OP didn't have that, so it's not just Tesco policy, it's also the law that requires it.

One of the things that is deemed to be 'proof' of purchase is where the good is an own brand item as it seems it was in this case.

Also, I think what was being referred to as 'brain dead' was the fact that only 37p was involved rather than the actual technicalities of the case.

Money_User

vyle wrote: »

so it's not just Tesco policy, it's also the law that requires it.

One requires a brain to know the law!

Money_User

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Not sure if they were quaking in their boots but they were quick to state they didn't want their name used.

Because their surname is none of your business?