M&S policy overriding consumer law

gwgw45

somethingcorporate wrote: »

This was exactly the phrase I thought of as I read through the OP.

Oh dear, you should really be embarrassed OP as you were 100% in the wrong. Do your research about your ACTUAL rights before harping on and wasting their time about rights you THINK you have.

Interesting, so I should have accepted the initial response and gone on my way believing that M&S had no accountability as the initial manager informed me. Interesting that you accuse me of being dangerous??

As you may have gathered, I still believe that I had the right to insist on a refund. Whilst 3 months may have elapsed, the item had had very little use for a suit that cost in excess of £300.


G.

bod1467

After 3 months, you didn't have a right to insist on a refund, you had a right to insist on a remedy - ONE of which is a refund, but is ultimately the retailer's choice.

You are correct, however, that the retailer can not exclude a faulty zip from their liabilities/duties under SOGA. (At least not within 6 months, or without proving the fault was due to misuse).

gwgw45

Quentin wrote: »

How arrogant to lecture like this?

His misunderstanding of "consumer protection legislation" didn't do him much harm in this instance did it?

Well worth banging on sometimes, and escalating to a manager who has the authority to issue a refund for goodwill purposes irrespective of the customer's lack of rights!

This approach should be used by all to try and get a refund when our right to one has gone!

Thanks for the balanced comments. I accept that my perspective may not be in keeping with many views here however I choose to believe that a suit that cost in excess of £300 and failed after 4 weeks wear is unacceptable. In my view my stance was reasonable and fair, and it is M&S who are in the wrong. Seriously "we have a policy that excludes zips from the warranty" Sure, I know warranty is meaningless and it is the SOGA that counts, but how many people would have left after the initial refusal, the majority I suspect.

I did endeavour to return it on the day the zip failed but the store was heaving with Christmas shoppers as was the customer services desk. So, in my belief I was entitled to a refund, and having confirmed that neither the store, or M&S online had a replacement pair of trousers in stock, I purchased a new one. I did this then, rather than when I returned it, was in the knowledge that the chances of them having another suit in my uncommon size after Christmas was nil.

Regards
G

gwgw45

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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.

I take it you don't work in a shop anymore, I can understand this.

gwgw45

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.

Exactly! a lesser person would have walked at that point and M&S' policy would have avoided their statutory obligations.

gwgw45

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.

Suggest you read it again, relevant part copied below for your ease.

"At the refunds counter the young girl sought the guidance of her manager. This woman came to tell me that they would not offer a refund as they did not guarantee zips. She was very single minded and was not interested in discussion."

gwgw45

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

Somebody commented that I didn't post much. It is posts like yours that are exactly the reason why. You and others jump to conclusions, make assumptions and generally denigrate people based on a few lines of text.

Unlike many I was prepared to put my money where my mouth was, and test my assertion that I was entitled to a refund in the courts. It is my view that in all of my measured and reasonable discussions with the three managers that my pleasant but firm determination communicated itself and persuaded the manager to accommodate my request.

However I shall leave you to wallow in your self righteousness :-)

G.

gwgw45

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Answered elsewhere :-)

gwgw45

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

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

Aww, ok, just for you :-)

gwgw45

All,

For those that offered constructive advice and observations I thank you. For those that treated it as a sport and chose to be unpleasant, I am glad I was able to be the focus of your vitriol rather than someone who might feel hurt by your assumptions and pronouncements.

To use the Arnie analogy offered elsewhere allow me to confirm, I will not be back (in this thread)

Thanks
G.