Retailer Claiming No Refunds

Scotty_uk

Hi All,
I've been reading these forums for a while and I've got a query that I need help with.
Last Friday I bought a pair of kilt shoes from a shop, for a wedding I was attending this weekend. I tried one of them on, it fitted fine so paid the £50 on my card.
On Saturday morning I went to put them in my bag only to find that the shop had given me two right shoes!
The shop didn't open until 9 and I had to leave before that to go up north so left them in my flat and decided to buy a new pair when I got there.
On the Monday I went to return my two right shoes for a refund (as I had bought a new pair). I couldn't find my receipt but thought if I explained the situation it wouldn't be a problem.
When I told the shop owner my story I was pointed towards a sign that said "no refunds, exchange only".
Am I right in thinking that as the shoes are not fit for purpose I am entitled to a refund?
I have a bank statement which shows I think will count as proof of purchase.
What should my next steps be?
Any help is appreciated.

Scott

InsideInsurance

The point of argument is that you are "rejecting" the shoes on the grounds of being faulty/ not fit for purpose.

If are considered to have accepted them then it is up to the retailer to decide how to resolve the matter (repair, replace, refund)

I wouldnt get hung up on the proof of purchase unless they ask about it

bod1467

I think the problem may hinge on the fact the OP had an opportunity to inspect the goods before leaving the shop. OP also chose to buy a new pair elsewhere before seeking a remedy. (I know there were extenuating circumstances regarding travel, but that's not the retailer's fault).

Might be a tricky one, to force a refund. I suspect you'll be entirely at the whim of the retailer's goodwill.

MamaMoo_2

I'd politely suggest to them that it might be worth refunding you as you don't want a credit note and so, if a refund isn't forthcoming, you'll keep the shoes, in which case they'll have a pair of left shoes that they won't be able to sell otherwise...

bod1467

MamaMoo wrote: »

I'd politely suggest to them that it might be worth refunding you as you don't want a credit note, and so if a refund isn't forthcoming, you'll keep the shoes, in which case they'll have a pair of left shoes that they won't be able to sell otherwise...

Good point! :rotfl:

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

I think the problem may hinge on the fact the OP had an opportunity to inspect the goods before leaving the shop. OP also chose to buy a new pair elsewhere before seeking a remedy. (I know there were extenuating circumstances regarding travel, but that's not the retailer's fault).

Might be a tricky one, to force a refund. I suspect you'll be entirely at the whim of the retailer's goodwill.

You could say that about any store bought purchase though.

I think given the time frame involved, OP should still be able to reject under SoGA for a full refund.

And any sign saying "no refunds" is illegal.

bris

unholyangel wrote: »

And any sign saying "no refunds" is illegal.

No, it's not, it can say no refunds for goods bought in error but not faulty or to that effect. It only becomes illegal to imply no refunds for any reason.

yangptangkipperbang

MamaMoo wrote: »

in which case they'll have a pair of left shoes that they won't be able to sell otherwise...

I wouldn't bank on that........they managed to sell a "pair" of right shoes OK though...........:rotfl:

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

No, it's not, it can say no refunds for goods bought in error but not faulty or to that effect. It only becomes illegal to imply no refunds for any reason.

apparently even saying "no refund unless faulty" is illegal because there are other instances you would be entitled to a refund (misdescribed).

fred7777

bod1467 wrote: »

I think the problem may hinge on the fact the OP had an opportunity to inspect the goods before leaving the shop. OP also chose to buy a new pair elsewhere before seeking a remedy.

If I'm reading the original post correctly they inspected a pair of shoes and found they fitted in the shop but when they took them out of the packaging at home found the shop had given them a different pair of shoes which were not fit for purpose.

So inspection of the shoes in the shop is irrelevant as the shoes they were given differed substantially from the shoes they inspected.

The first time the OP inspected the shoes they had purchased they found them to be not fit for purpose and they rejected them as soon as they were reasonably able to do so.

The fact the OP chose to purchase other shoes isn't relevant to this transaction as they shoes in this transaction were not fit for purpose so rejection and refund is fair.

fiscalfreckles

MamaMoo wrote: »

I'd politely suggest to them that it might be worth refunding you as you don't want a credit note and so, if a refund isn't forthcoming, you'll keep the shoes, in which case they'll have a pair of left shoes that they won't be able to sell otherwise...

...unless they had already sold a pair of lefts & were therefore thrilled to get rid of the rights!

(I'm joking)