M&S policy overriding consumer law

somethingcorporate

Yep I read it the same way, the discussion is around the remedy of refund - it appears the OP was unwilling to consider other (perfectly allowable) ones.

arcon5

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!

There's a way to 'try it on' also. Op got lucky in this instance. Next time it happens op may not strike gold, but because of ops flawed 'I know my rights' attitude may in fact be the difference between getting that goodwill gesture and getting a stubborn sales assistance who doesn't like your know it all attitude and digging their heels in.

bris

Cmon folks you have to remember party time is now over, time for all the chancers to return their party dresses and suits, thinking they have the right to do so.

Pollycat

gwgw45 wrote: »

She did suggest that they would replace the trousers, or the suit. However I had already purchased a replacement so that was not acceptable.

One wonders why the OP purchased a replacement suit instead of returning the one with the faulty zip.....

vuvuzela

Pollycat wrote: »

One wonders why the OP purchased a replacement suit instead of returning the one with the faulty zip.....

[strike]why[/strike] if...

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Ha ha wonder if the OP will be back, as Arnie would be.

bod1467

At 22 posts in 7 years (3 posts per year) it could be a while ....

gwgw45

Guardsman wrote: »

You accepted his offer and you should have left it at that.

You agree that M&S can exclude zips and substitute their policy for the SOGA?

gwgw45

MamaMoo wrote: »

As you can see, M&S policy does not attempt to override consumer law at all, you just were not fully aware of the law/SOGA.

Indeed, a reasonable time is the key. Within that three months it had had no more than 4 weeks wear as I rotate three suits. I do not consider that time to be reasonable.
I was prepared to test that theory.

I disagree, they were attempting to overide SOGA with their policy "we do not warranty zips" This was the first response and had I been more compliant I would have left the store, with unusable suit and M&S would have evaded their legal obligations.

Remember, the offers of compromise only began after I insisted on speaking to management.

G.

gwgw45

Gavin83 wrote: »

It was good of M&S to refund you, they didn't have to. As others have said, a replacement was acceptable. They could have also deducted some money from the original sale price. I think writing a letter to head office when you clearly don't have a full grasp of the law is a little foolish, but the option is yours. Personally I'd be happy with what they provided and leave it there.

Also be thankful they did refund you because the court claim would have cost you further.

The purpose of writing to M&S relates to their policy. You cannot avoid liability for faulty products by having "a policy"

As to the court claim I don't necessarily agree, but as you correctly point out it would have been at my expense.

Thank you for your measured response though :-) It does appear to be the exception.

G