Sainsbury's new return policy - illegal?

scep

I had trouble returning faulty goods to Sainsbury's recently. After several emails they finally told me:

Our refund policy has recently changed. We can no longer exchange or offer a refund for a product unless we have proof of purchase. This proof could be in the form of a receipt or a bank statement reflecting the purchase. Records in the stores go back up to six months and therefore they are able to reproduce receipts using the information on the bank statement.

The bank statement itself is not acceptable - it is only so that that the can find a copy of the itemised receipt on their database. If they can't find it - or it's more than six months after purchase - they say that they will not replace.

So they are insisting upon a receipt (either the original or a copy from their system). This is contrary to the Sale of Goods Act.

[N.B. this is for info only - they eventually found my receipt on their database and replaced the item.]

bod1467

But the part you quoted doesn't state that the bank statement is only for finding their copy of the receipt. Sounds like their policy is correct, but the way some of their staff are implementing it is wrong.

visidigi

what he said

neilmcl

Remember they're looking for "proof of purchase". In certain cases, where there are multiple items purchased such as in a supermarket, a bank statement in itself might not be proof enough.

scep

bod1467 wrote: »

But the part you quoted doesn't state that the bank statement is only for finding their copy of the receipt. Sounds like their policy is correct, but the way some of their staff are implementing it is wrong.

To clarify: the quote was the final "official" word from them after much pestering to admit that they were wrong. Until then several people (including senior CS staff and store managers) had repeatedly told me that a bank statement itself was insufficient and that without a receipt I could forget it. I was told that this was "head office instruction" and "store policy". This was not just poorly trained floor staff implementing it wrongly.

So, my point in posting was to inform that their actual (internal) policy is somewhat different to what they will tell you in writing (hence the question mark in the title). Really just as a heads up to how you will be treated in store...

scep

neilmcl wrote: »

Remember they're looking for "proof of purchase". In certain cases, where there are multiple items purchased such as in a supermarket, a bank statement in itself might not be proof enough.

I'm pretty sure that bank statement + word of mouth would do the job in court. We're not talking about proving the existence of a contract for a house, it's a supermarket purchase

texranger

All you need to provide is proof of purchase either a receipt or bank statement will suffice under SOGA

bod1467

scep wrote: »

So, my point in posting was to inform that their actual (internal) policy is somewhat different to what they will tell you in writing (hence the question mark in the title). Really just as a heads up to how you will be treated in store...

So pretty much what I said anyway.

texranger

bod1467 wrote: »

So pretty much what I said anyway.

yup, another company that believes they are above the law so in their eyes the law does not apply to them

WhiteHorse

Sainsburys: We can no longer exchange or offer a refund for a product unless we have proof of purchase.

What Sainsburys is trying to do is understandable - people steal or buy items elsewhere and then try and get refunds from Sainsburys.

Obviously, they cannot sustain this and are understandably cheesed off with it. However, the way the are going about it is against the law.

They are not required by law to issue receipts, so you cannot be required to produce one.

However ... receipts are desirable because your only recourse, should the retailer decide to dispute the original purchase, is to sue. That then comes down to the balance of probability, which is unlikely to be in your favour.

texranger

WhiteHorse wrote: »

However ... receipts are desirable because your only recourse, should the retailer decide to dispute the original purchase, is to sue. That then comes down to the balance of probability, which is unlikely to be in your favour.

WRONG

the reason a receipt/proof of purchase is requires is to time when it was purchased.

most items will have a 12 month warranty, so you purchased lets say a TV 2 yrs ago and kept the box etc. so this is effectively out of warranty, but this suddenly stopped working, so as you noticed the store still stocked this model, you box it up and take it to the store and say you got this last month and it stopped working can i have it exchanged or refunded, so without a receipt/proof of purchase they have no idea when you actually purchased it or if indeed you purchased it from them.