Zara wont accept proof of purchase

ILW

A bank statement showing that someone spent something with a store at some time, is not exactly proof of purchase. Why not just keep the receipt?

wealdroam

I_Love_Shoes wrote: »

I_Love_Shoes wrote: »

I had to buy something else in the end as I was worried they wouldnt do anything next time.

I have emailed them through their web form.
Lets see where this gets me!

I would suggest that now you have accepted a remedy, your latest email will get you nowhere.

shocky_2

neilmcl wrote: »

Where did you get that from? The OP clearly stated that she purchased these trousers "a while ago", (edit: I just read their other post where they admitted the purchase was in September) so it's safe to assume that she'd be outside the required reasonable period to reject then for a full refund.

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Weird that their name implies they are a solicitor but don't know much about the SOGA!

They are well outside the period of rejection for an item of clothing which is almost certainly less than a month.

The Op stated that the trousers had only just been worn. I took that to mean she returned them promptly within the reasonable period allowed for inspection.

Obviously if the Op purchased them in September the situation is different, and she is entitled to a refund or repair or replacement at Zara's discretion. Of course this doesn't matter to the Op anyway, she is perfectly happy with a replacement or refund her question was whether she needs a receipt.

This is now redundant anyway, as it turns out the Op's post was completely misleading. She has used the trousers for two months and, unbelievably, is trying to get a refund as well as the money she already spent in store. She isn't entitled to anything.

somethingcorporate

youngsolicitor wrote: »

The Op stated that the trousers had only just been worn. I took that to mean she returned them promptly within the reasonable period allowed for inspection.

Obviously if the Op purchased them in September the situation is different, and she is entitled to a refund or repair or replacement at Zara's discretion. Of course this doesn't matter to the Op anyway, she is perfectly happy with a replacement or refund her question was whether she needs a receipt.

Post #4 (before yours) confirms when they were bought, hence your following post was misleading.

shocky_2

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Post #4 (before yours) confirms when they were bought, hence your following post was misleading.

Fair enough, my bad for not reading all the posts :beer:

artbaron

So you purchased trousers three months ago, wore them for two months, damaged them (a pocket can't tear itself), then took them back and, without a receipt and attempting to conceal that you've had them three months, demanded a refund. The shop gave you a credit note for the full amount, which you accepted and spent. You then wrote to the company asking for even more compensation. You've started several threads like this, returning to shops and demanding refunds for products which you've used and for which you have no receipt. This time you got compensation for which you weren't legally entitled and you're still not satisfied. Amazing.

unholyangel

youngsolicitor wrote: »

This is now redundant anyway, as it turns out the Op's post was completely misleading. She has used the trousers for two months and, unbelievably, is trying to get a refund as well as the money she already spent in store. She isn't entitled to anything.

Seems like attention to detail isn't your strong point. May want to work on that given your apparent line of work

As well as stating they bought them in september, they also stated they started wearing them at the end of november. So have been wearing for less than 1 month. Nor did she say she was trying to get a refund on top of having the credit - the way I read it is she would prefer her money back vs other items and was going to ask if she could return the items she bought using the credit in favour of a refund.

Looks like artbaron made the same mistake.

I_Love_Shoes

Thank you unholyangel for not getting on your high horse like everybody else!
The trousers have been worn for about 2 weeks (they were purchased in September but have just been in the wardrobe ever since). They fit me perfectly fine, I didnt have to squeeze myself into them (which may explain a pocket ripping), and they werent caught on anything, I think some of the stitching must have come undone but as I was wearing them, it probably tore the whole pocket section open.
I am not after goods in the store PLUS a refund, I am just looking for advice as to what Zara have told me. As I said in my original post, I dont think not having a receipt is a good enough excuse to not get a full refund if the product is faulty and a proof of purchase is shown to the retailer.

wealdroam

I_Love_Shoes wrote: »

I am not after goods in the store PLUS a refund...

But you told us in post#8 that you have already accepted a remedy...

I_Love_Shoes wrote: »

I had to buy something else in the end as I was worried they wouldnt do anything next time.

I_Love_Shoes wrote: »

...I am just looking for advice as to what Zara have told me. As I said in my original post, I dont think not having a receipt is a good enough excuse to not get a full refund if the product is faulty and a proof of purchase is shown to the retailer.

And you were given the answer to that question in post #2.

unholyangel

I_Love_Shoes wrote: »

Thank you unholyangel for not getting on your high horse like everybody else!
The trousers have been worn for about 2 weeks (they were purchased in September but have just been in the wardrobe ever since). They fit me perfectly fine, I didnt have to squeeze myself into them (which may explain a pocket ripping), and they werent caught on anything, I think some of the stitching must have come undone but as I was wearing them, it probably tore the whole pocket section open.
I am not after goods in the store PLUS a refund, I am just looking for advice as to what Zara have told me. As I said in my original post, I dont think not having a receipt is a good enough excuse to not get a full refund if the product is faulty and a proof of purchase is shown to the retailer.

I dont think anyone meant to. They just misread your post and with things like that, even a "small" detail can make a huge change to your rights. And not everyone jumped on their high horse :P Was just 2 posters from what I remember.

For future reference, as other posters said above.....if an item is faulty then they can ask for proof of purchase but this does not have to be a receipt (for a warranty though, they can specify receipt since this is in addition to your statutory rights). If its faulty within the first 6 months of purchase, it is assumed to be faulty on the date it was purchased and it is for the retailer to prove otherwise (burden of proof switches after 6 months for the consumer to prove it was faulty).