Tesco - SOGA doesn't apply to us

somethingcorporate

Sorry, I hadn't picked it up - it has been a couple of days since I read this from the beginning.

They are wrong on the rejection front, but it doesn't mean they aren't due a remedy from Tesco, with the burden of proof on Tesco given it is less than 6 months old.

timbstoke

Very true, but the offer of a full refund in the form of a gift card was a reasonable solution, especially if the OP was about to buy shopping anyway. While technically not one of the remedies available under SOGA, not accepting it was extreme pedantry even by my standards (and I positively enjoy arguing with store managers!)

somethingcorporate

timbstoke wrote: »

Very true, but the offer of a full refund in the form of a gift card was a reasonable solution, especially if the OP was about to buy shopping anyway. While technically not one of the remedies available under SOGA, not accepting it was extreme pedantry even by my standards (and I positively enjoy arguing with store managers!)

Yep, principles are one thing but sticking to them to your obvious detriment is moronic.

Flyboy152

one_hot_minute wrote: »

#

The employee's job title and the date would be more than enough to identify him. The big retailers use digital rotas now so Head Office would be able to find out who you dealt with at the click of a button by looking at the staff schedules. Similarly, all it would need would be a few clicks on the internet and you'd be able find out his address from 192.com / facebook page / twitter feed by demanding his surname.

Just because you say you're not a weirdy who would do things like that doesn't mean that you're not. And even if your intentions were perfectly legitimate doesn't mean there are people out there with ulterior motives, who wouldn't take this situation as a personal grudge and look into the employee's private life.

This person isn't just a Tesco employee with a personal agenda to p**s you off, he's a person with a private life and family he wants to protect.

It's bonkers that you think he's being difficult by not providing his surname.

But not giving his surname is never ever going to protect him from someone who is determined to chase him home. His name will posted instore anyway, so one can only imagine the only reason for him refusing to give his surname, would be to annoy the customer.

Flyboy152

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Wrong, it would not be within the time for rejection under SOGA.

You'd be hard-pushed to find anyone that would suggest 5 months is a 'reasonable' amount of time to outright reject. I would go with a week, possibly two, depending on what it is for normal clothing.

In the vast majority of cases, I would agree, however, as in my example earlier regarding skis bought in June, for a winter holiday, it could be considered reasonable time, if they were rejected in December, after finding a fault at first use.

Flyboy152

timbstoke wrote: »

Very true, but the offer of a full refund in the form of a gift card was a reasonable solution, especially if the OP was about to buy shopping anyway. While technically not one of the remedies available under SOGA, not accepting it was extreme pedantry even by my standards (and I positively enjoy arguing with store managers!)

No it wasn't, becasue a gift card is not a refund.

shaun_from_Africa

Flyboy152 wrote: »

No it wasn't, becasue a gift card is not a refund.

I think (and I may well be wrong) that timbstoke stated that a gift card was a reasonable solution due to the fact that if they had wished, Tesco could have refused any refund at that point and insisted that the top was sent away to enable them to determine if the fault was due to misuse by the OP.
Even if at the time of return they had agreed that the fault was due to a manufacturing defect, they could also have offered a cash refund minus a % to cover the 5 months that the OP had owned the top. (Very unlikely that they would have done this, but legally they still had the right).
They could also have stated that they would attempt to get hold of a replacement top from their disrribution depot, which again may have taken quite a while.

BY accepting the gift card the OP would have received a payment to enable them to purchase a replacement top or other goods of the same value without Tesco delaying the payment until the returned top had been returned following any investigation

IMO, this is a typical example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

somethingcorporate

Flyboy152 wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases, I would agree, however, as in my example earlier regarding skis bought in June, for a winter holiday, it could be considered reasonable time, if they were rejected in December, after finding a fault at first use.

Whilst you are right, I was not referring to your specific example. I was using this real life case where a summer dress was bought in summer!

2 weeks is being generous!

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I think (and I may well be wrong) that timbstoke stated that a gift card was a reasonable solution due to the fact that if they had wished, Tesco could have refused any refund at that point and insisted that the top was sent away to enable them to determine if the fault was due to misuse by the OP.
Even if at the time of return they had agreed that the fault was due to a manufacturing defect, they could also have offered a cash refund minus a % to cover the 5 months that the OP had owned the top. (Very unlikely that they would have done this, but legally they still had the right).
They could also have stated that they would attempt to get hold of a replacement top from their disrribution depot, which again may have taken quite a while.

BY accepting the gift card the OP would have received a payment to enable them to purchase a replacement top or other goods of the same value without Tesco delaying the payment until the returned top had been returned following any investigation

IMO, this is a typical example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

I said the same thing earlier But remember, the OP is arguing based on the principles of his "rights"........be careful what you wish for as the retailer has "rights" too.

Hermione_Granger

But remember, the OP is arguing based on the principles of his "rights

When crossing a road on a pedestrian crossing and the "green man" is showing, the person on foot has legal right of way over vehicles.

I wonder if the OP would step out after seeing a speeding car that they thought wouldn't stop in time seeing as they would be in the right.