Faulty training shoes : refuses to change because I used it

Hintza

Jessica9 wrote: »

I will go to make a complaint to the police

Why this is a civil matter!

malchish

frugal_mike wrote: »

In either case the shop has the right to inspect them to see if they are inherently faulty and not misused by you. Given its less than 6 months it will be assumed that they are inherently faulty unless the ship can prove otherwise.

Can you please help by quoting the original legislation which mentions the right of retailers to inspect the allegedly faulty goods? I cannot find any, I looked through all SoGA.
And what i know for sure, that the small claims court will not accept an inspection made without its consent. Small claims do not require inspection. The need for a specialist inspection indicates that the case should not be heard on a small track.

malchish

This is a usual con - to take all the evidence away by asking the buyer to "return the goods for inspection", and then claim hat their inspection found nothing wrong. When the goods are requested back, they get "misplaced" and a refund would be given without acceptance of any fault.
This also makes any independent inspection impossible, especially if there are damages .
Example: a faulty electrical allpliance exploded and caused fire. The retailer took the item for "inspection", deemed "all right", "lost" the item, gave refund, but now the damages cannot be successfully claimed, since the evidence disappeared. The golden rule is : NEVER give the faulty item to the retailer unless the fault has been already documented and refund (or damages amount) agreed! Your strength is in your evidence.

Valli

malchish wrote: »

Can you please help by quoting the original legislation which mentions the right of retailers to inspect the allegedly faulty goods? I cannot find any, I looked through all SoGA.
And what i know for sure, that the small claims court will not accept an inspection made without its consent. Small claims do not require inspection. The need for a specialist inspection indicates that the case should not be heard on a small track.

Not a specialist inspection, but inspection by the manufacturer, as outlined of the OFT's SOGA leaflet -

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf

Page 15 in this leaflet.

When you give advice to this poster, malchish, please bear in mind that English doesn't appear to be her first language.

malchish

Valli wrote: »

Not a specialist inspection, but inspection by the manufacturer, as outlined of the OFT's SOGA leaflet -

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf

Page 15 in this leaflet.

When you give advice to this poster, malchish, please bear in mind that English doesn't appear to be her first language.

The leaflet is not a legislation, but opinion. I know about the leaflet. But where is the source?

And yes, I write by "bablefish" from Japanese lol. I am impressed by your attempts to give me a gender, this is completely irrelevant to what the OP wants to know.

malchish

Well,Valli reads this :

"If you disagree with a customer’s claim, you can ask if they
are willing for you to send the item to a third party or the
manufacturer for inspection. If the customer agrees you can
do this, it is important to remember that the goods must not
be damaged during this process" ...

and concludes that there is the right for inspection.
This is a wrong conclusion. here there is merely an invitation to ask, and it is up to the consumer whether to agree or not. I would never agree to give away my evidence to the opposing party.
So, there is no right of the retailer to choose where they send the item for inspection, or to send it for inspection at all.

halibut2209

As you well know, before 6 months the retailer must prove that the fault was/wasn't inherent. Now, how do you propose they do that without the item?

malchish

halibut2209 wrote: »

As you well know, before 6 months the retailer must prove that the fault was/wasn't inherent. Now, how do you propose they do that without the item?

Very simply: 1)paying for the independent inspection at an outlet chosen by the consumer, or mutually agreed.
2) Looking at the item in the presence of the consumer, if the fault is more obvious.

browneyedbazzi

It's all well and good to say never to give a faulty item to the retailer to have it examined etc because you don't have to, but unless you want to go through the small claims court every time you seek a remedy for a faulty product it isn't really a practical stance to take. It's often much quicker and easier to allow the retailer to have the product inspected.

Also the comments about not sending things off because the retailer/manufacturer may 'lose' them to prevent you claiming for damages is completely irrelevant to the OP and just confuses the matter. The OP doesn't have any damages to claim and simply wants a refund/replacement for the shoes.

And OP, please don't waste police time with this non-sense. I can't believe you'd even consider doing so.

halibut2209

You missed out the important word. THEY have to prove, therefore they can choose the outlet. If you refuse then should it get to court you would lose by not letting them carry out their rights. Simples.