M&S policy overriding consumer law

Quentin

Pollycat wrote: »

.....You mention 'trying to get a refund when our right to get one has gone'.
'Trying it on' is totally different to the situation the OP describes where he believed he was entitled to a refund and that M&S were in breach of SOGA....

Yes, the OP "misunderstood" the legislation - he wasn't trying it on.

But now we know it's well worth trying it on, even though we all think we do know our rights!

somethingcorporate

Who didn't know that it's always worth asking? Most companies that give a monkeys about customer service will do something to help.

Belligerently banging on about rights you don't have is just foolish and had it been someone that knew anything about consumer rights would have sent him packing. When I worked in a shop years ago I used to send all sorts of jokers on their way threatening court for thinking they had rights when they didn't.

If they were nice and asked for help we'd bend over backwards to help them. If they were just moronic then we used to dig heels in. It's human nature to be defensive.

steampowered

The Op was wrong. But the M&S manager was also wrong by saying M&S don't guarantee zips. Hopefully everyone involved will read up a little on consumer law.

MamaMoo_2

Quentin wrote: »

Yes, the OP "misunderstood" the legislation - he wasn't trying it on.

But now we know it's well worth trying it on, even though we all think we do know our rights!

People would probably have been a little more understanding had it been clear that the OP was friendly, polite, and just got his wires crossed and came on here for a bit of advice or to double check their rights.
However, from the tone of the OP, we can tell that he in fact went in, all-guns blazing, being a rude and arrogant so-and-so, loudly demanding rights that he does not have.
Not only that, but after a more than satisfactory result, the OP decides to take his arrogant misunderstandings further by whining to head office about how they fail to co play with a law which the OP knows little about.
And, to make his point a little more, he comes on here venting about his consumer rights in a situation which really, given M&S's goodwill gesture, should have been on the praise, vents and warnings board under the title "M&S do more than required despite PITA customer"

somethingcorporate

MamaMoo wrote: »

People would probably have been a little more understanding had it been clear that the OP was friendly, polite, and just got his wires crossed and came on here for a bit of advice or to double check their rights.
However, from the tone of the OP, we can tell that he in fact went in, all-guns blazing, being a rude and arrogant so-and-so, loudly demanding rights that he does not have.
Not only that, but after a more than satisfactory result, the OP decides to take his arrogant misunderstandings further by whining to head office about how they fail to co play with a law which the OP knows little about.
And, to make his point a little more, he comes on here venting about his consumer rights in a situation which really, given M&S's goodwill gesture, should have been on the praise, vents and warnings board under the title "M&S do more than required despite PITA customer"

This! :rotfl:

Pollycat

Quentin wrote: »

Yes, the OP "misunderstood" the legislation - he wasn't trying it on.

But now we know it's well worth trying it on, even though we all think we do know our rights!

So what is arrogant about telling the OP he was spouting a load of hot air that had no legal basis then?

If anyone has been arrogant, it's the OP.

TBH, I think the OP, after saying he would write to Head office insisting on a refund within 7 days and then take M&S to the small claims court if that wasn't forthcoming - when he'd not got a leg to stand on legally, was damned lucky that he got a goodwill offer of a refund.

gwgw45 wrote: »

I explained to him that I was past the point of wanting more discussion and explained that I would take his details, write to head office insisting on a refund within 7 days and if this was not forthcoming I would issue a small claim. I also explained that spent thousands in M&S every year (this is true) and that I would cease to be a customer.

He explained that he wanted me to be happy and that he would therefore refund me as a goodwill gesture.
I accepted his offer but explained that I would be writing to head office seeking confirmation that M&S feel that their policy can override the Sale of Goods act. I asked him if he would be happy for me to quote him in said letter, he replied in the affirmative.

OlliesDad

steampowered wrote: »

The Op was wrong. But the M&S manager was also wrong by saying M&S don't guarantee zips. Hopefully everyone involved will read up a little on consumer law.

How was the manager incorrect? M&S don't legally have to offer a guarantee on any part of the trousers.

However, He was wrong not to offer a remedy under the SOGA straight away.

steampowered

OlliesDad wrote: »

How was the manager incorrect? M&S don't legally have to offer a guarantee on any part of the trousers.

However, He was wrong not to offer a remedy under the SOGA straight away.

Yes, this is what I mean. The store manager wasn't just saying they don't "guarantee" zips but he initially didn't offer any remedy at all. M&S can't have a policy which takes zips outside SOGA just because its a zip.

neilmcl

steampowered wrote: »

Yes, this is what I mean. The store manager wasn't just saying they don't "guarantee" zips but he initially didn't offer any remedy at all. M&S can't have a policy which takes zips outside SOGA just because its a zip.

That's not how I read it. The OP states that the (first) manager wasn't interested in offering a refund but offered a replacement instead.

shaun_from_Africa

neilmcl wrote: »

That's not how I read it. The OP states that the (first) manager wasn't interested in offering a refund but offered a replacement instead.

That's exactly what the OP stated.

This lady duly arrived and reiterated that it was M&S policy that they did not warranty zips. Interestingly they likened the failure of a zip to that of a hem coming undone? I suggested that their policy was contrary to current consumer legislation (fit for purpose, satisfactory quality etc) Again she was not interested. She did suggest that they would replace the trousers, or the suit. However I had already purchased a replacement so that was not acceptable. She remained steadfast in her refusal to refund. I asked to speak to the store manager.

An exchange was offered but refused by the OP.