Bought goods from Peacocks but can't get refund?

Munkee2

vaio wrote: »

OP, you mentioned "some clothes that didn't fit and are worth £30" what was the value of the whole order?

If it's less than £100 then your only chance is a charge-back on the grounds that the clothes were not in accordance with the description i.e. wrong size etc

It was £40. Two items out of the five I ordered fit. The sizes are so weird!

Munkee2

nearlyrich wrote: »

But thy did fullfill the obligation they delivered the goods as ordered??

Yes they did. I got what I paid for.

vicmorrow

Munkee2 wrote: »

Yes they did. I got what I paid for.

That may be a problem. Explain everything to your Bank and see whay they say.

Munkee2

vicmorrow wrote: »

That may be a problem. Explain everything to your Bank and see whay they say.

I will do, I'll do it today. Thank you very much to everybody who has contributed to this thread! :beer:

I will return to let you know the outcome, whatever that may be.

vaio

Munkee2 wrote: »

It was £40. Two items out of the five I ordered fit. The sizes are so weird!

Munkee2 wrote: »

Yes they did. I got what I paid for.

Did you? Unless you deliberately ordered different sizes then it doesn't look like you got what you paid for, it looks to me like you got some which weren't the size they were labelled as

paddedjohn

vicmorrow wrote: »

Can everyone stop going on about credit cards....it was a visa debit card that was used and you are covered with purchases under £100.

How would that work? the OP got what she ordered, nothing is faulty and by the sound of it she didnt inform Peacocks that she didnt want the goods within 7 days, how would she be entitled to a chargeback?

Jaymo

paddedjohn wrote: »

How would that work? the OP got what she ordered, nothing is faulty and by the sound of it she didnt inform Peacocks that she didnt want the goods within 7 days, how would she be entitled to a chargeback?

I work for a Bank and deal with disputes and I can tell you now that you won't be able to raise a claim for £40 worth of goods against Peacocks.

The goods/services were provided by the company and unfortunately as they've now gone into administration you don't have many rights left.

Whether you paid on Debit or Credit card wouldn't affect your ability to claim/dispute/chargeback on anything under £100. Section 75 is only used when a company is in administration or no longer trading and can't afford to refund the customer for faulty/damaged goods, fraudulent purchases or goods/services not provided.

Just wanted to clear this up as well because people are shouting section 75 before reading the posts.

Peacocks also won't refund the items because they can't due to the administration and will only refund faulty items (not fitting correctly won't cut it I'm afraid).

Long story short, is you're stuck with them which I know is a pain because technically you're at a financial loss at the items are useless to you but Peacocks have done everything correctly.

Why not cut your losses, put them on ebay and give 10% to a charity? At least something good may come of your own misfortune.

missile

Munkee2 wrote: »

Thank you Missile and Vaio. I paid using Visa debit. How do I put in a claim please?

I always use a credit card for online purchases. I have raised a dispute and successfully gained a refund for vouchers purchased from Groupon for less than £100.

In your case, I would contact the bank. I would not be hopeful, but it is worth a try?

lisyloo

I have raised a dispute and successfully gained a refund for vouchers purchased from Groupon for less than £100.

Yes, some companies will provide service beyond their statutory obligations.
As missile says, I think it's worth a try but to not be too hopeful.

lisyloo

the OP got what she ordered, nothing is faulty and by the sound of it she didnt inform Peacocks that she didnt want the goods within 7 days, how would she be entitled to a chargeback?

She got the goods but did not get the returns service she was entitled to.
I would guess that probably isn't going to work when the company is in administration but the argument is that they have not met their obligations in terms of the service they should provide as part of the deal.

This is a little bit of an eye-opener for me because I think many of us assume we are protected for these things.