Retailer Claiming No Refunds

MamaMoo_2

fred7777 wrote: »

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.

OP actually only tried one shoe on, so likely wouldn't have noticed that the other was the wrong one.

PaulLuke

As you are returning the goods due to being 'not fit for purpose' (unless you know someone who has two left feet!!) the sign in the shope is irrelevant. Also, thinking about the situation, technically the goods dont match their description as in standard parlance a 'pair' of shoes implies a left and right shoe, not two of the same!

If they continue to try and rely on it to refuse a refund get in touch with your local trading standards. I'm pretty sure they will be interested in the sign if it doesn't refer to something along the lines of "statutory rights excluded" when saying exchanges only.

Also, it would be good if you could find the receipt as they can ask you to proided evidence of having purchased the shoes from them (albeit that a bank statement covering the specific transaciton would certainly be a good starter!)

unholyangel

PaulLuke wrote: »

As you are returning the goods due to being 'not fit for purpose' (unless you know someone who has two left feet!!) the sign in the shope is irrelevant. Also, thinking about the situation, technically the goods dont match their description as in standard parlance a 'pair' of shoes implies a left and right shoe, not two of the same!

If they continue to try and rely on it to refuse a refund get in touch with your local trading standards. I'm pretty sure they will be interested in the sign if it doesn't refer to something along the lines of "statutory rights excluded" when saying exchanges only.

Also, it would be good if you could find the receipt as they can ask you to proided evidence of having purchased the shoes from them (albeit that a bank statement covering the specific transaciton would certainly be a good starter!)

They cant use phrases like "this does not affect your statutory rights" without offering a full explanation of what those rights are because its classed as legal jargon - which also isnt allowed (in addition to the sign being illegal).

And clearly it does affect your statutory rights since they referred to the sign to try and get out of offering OP a full refund.

PaulLuke

unholyangel wrote: »

They cant use phrases like "this does not affect your statutory rights" without offering a full explanation of what those rights are because its classed as legal jargon - which also isnt allowed (in addition to the sign being illegal).

And clearly it does affect your statutory rights since they referred to the sign to try and get out of offering OP a full refund.

Slightly off topic but where do you get the piece about having to explain what those rights are? I'm interested as I've certainly come across examples where retailers have to make it clear that any non statutory refund policy is in addition to statutory rights, but not that the retailer has to go on and highlight what those statutory rights might be. Indeed, if I was a small retailer I'd accept the piece about making it clear a refund policy works alongside statutory refund rights but would not be keen on going further to try and explain those rights.

bod1467

MamaMoo wrote: »

OP actually only tried one shoe on, so likely wouldn't have noticed that the other was the wrong one.

Beat me to it. Thanks.

unholyangel

PaulLuke wrote: »

Slightly off topic but where do you get the piece about having to explain what those rights are? I'm interested as I've certainly come across examples where retailers have to make it clear that any non statutory refund policy is in addition to statutory rights, but not that the retailer has to go on and highlight what those statutory rights might be. Indeed, if I was a small retailer I'd accept the piece about making it clear a refund policy works alongside statutory refund rights but would not be keen on going further to try and explain those rights.

Its covered under unfair contract terms. All terms must be in plain and intelligible language.

Phrases like I quoted above are considered to fall foul of this requirement as its legal jargon.

Its not that they have to always explain your rights. Its if there is a term which could be used as a limitation/exclusion clause where there is a legitimate claim (for example).

Even saying "no refunds, exchanges only - this does not affect your statutory rights" would be seen as illegal since the latter is legal jargon and the former may lead consumers with faulty goods believing they are not entitled to a refund.

derrick

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.

They are.

From Birmingham City Council TS as an example:-


THE LAW
The Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order prohibits the display of notices which indicate that no redress will be given to a customer with a complaint about the supply of goods.

WHAT STATEMENTS ARE PROHIBITED?
Any statement which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that he would not be able to pursue a justified claim against a retailer would be prohibited and therefore illegal. Examples of statements which the courts have deemed illegal are as follows:

a) 'No Cash Refunds'
b) 'No Sale Goods Exchanged or Money Refunded'
c) 'Sold as Seen and Inspected'
d) 'Please Examine Your Goods with Care Because our Liability Ends Once they Leave the Premises'
e) 'No Refunds or Exchanges Without a Receipt'

.

fred7777

MamaMoo wrote: »

OP actually only tried one shoe on, so likely wouldn't have noticed that the other was the wrong one.

Ahh I missed that point. In that case the issue of inspection is even more in the buyers favour as he did not inspect the other shoe in the store and found he had two rights the first time he inspected the other shoe.

Scotty_uk

Thanks all, will go in tomorrow and hope that common sense prevails. If not then I may be back for more advice!