Sports Direct Refund

frugal_mike

pmduk wrote: »

Of course they're legal. If the shop only offers refunds when statutory rights are involved then the signs are informative, accurate and factual. It might educate those customers who believe that a shop must refund for any reason.

I never thought I'd defend Sports Direct

If the sign said something like "no refunds for change of mind" then I would agree, but "no refunds" means no refunds ever. Qualifying it with legal jargon relies on consumers to know what the terms mean and what their statutory rights are. That is likely to mislead a lot of people.

Money-Saving-King

frugal_mike wrote: »

Qualifying it with legal jargon relies on consumers to know what the terms mean and what their statutory rights are.

Why's that a bad thing? There's loads of consumers up & down the land walk into shop demanding a refund because "the law" says they can and then don't get one then come on here crying for help only find out the shop was right.

Surely consumers finding out when they're legally allowed a refund or a simple sign saying no refunds (your statutory rights are unaffected) is the best thing.

DCFC79

starM wrote: »

Hi, The return was made within 7 days in same condition as bought (basically new).

If their is no statutory entitlement then why other store/supermarket issue the refunds.

Because the other shops or supermarkets have that policy in place whereas SD dont. A retailer does'nt have to refund you at all. Looks like you got off lightly as SD dont tend to do refunds unless faulty.

frugal_mike

The problem is that the term 'no refunds' does not mean 'no refunds for change of mind'. It will make some people think they have no right to a refund in any situation.

I agree that people should know what their rights are, but its not always straight forward and there are plenty of people that may find it difficult to find out or understand. Confusing and contradictory signs don't help, especially when the contradiction is hidden behind legal jargon.

Poppy9

frugal_mike wrote: »

I'm fairly certain signs that say "No refunds (your statutory rights are unaffected)" are not legal since it is assumed the average consumer will not know what their statutory rights are.

Quite legal as it is not stating it's avoiding your statutory rights under the SOGA. Average consumers know their basic statutory rights it just gets more complicated when stores try to enforce a time period that is not specified in the act i.e. 1 month exchange/refund after that repair. Or after 12 months tough !!!!!!. Neither legal but many consumers just accept this.

frugal_mike

I'be been searching online and it was surprisingly hard to find any guidelines talking about this. However, I finally found trading standards making a comment on this...

https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/ft25_tcm44-71898.pdf

Under the section 'Can I disclaim the notice to make it correct?' it says that it is likely to be illegal to use terms like 'no refunds' with a disclaimer such as 'your statutory rights remain unaffected' because it is contradictory and likely to be confusing.

At least now I know I wasn't making it up or going mad

pmduk

You won't find a court in this country taking your side in this.

frugal_mike

pmduk wrote: »

You won't find a court in this country taking your side in this.

Well i'm certainly not planning on taking anyone to court so i'm not going to be able to give a definitive answer to that. I definitely agree with Trading Standards on this though.

shaun_from_Africa

frugal_mike wrote: »

Well i'm certainly not planning on taking anyone to court so i'm not going to be able to give a definitive answer to that. I definitely agree with Trading Standards on this though.

If Trading standards are so sure that the term in question is illegal, why didn't they just say so?
Instead of that, they simply give a very vague comment stating that the term is likely be illegal.
Surely they must know one way or the other.

However, where two contradictory statements are used together they are still likely to mislead consumers about their rights and the notice is likely to be illegal

frugal_mike

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If Trading standards are so sure that the term in question is illegal, why didn't they just say so?
Instead of that, they simply give a very vague comment stating that the term is likely be illegal.
Surely they must know one way or the other.

Good point. I can only imagine that the law isn't that simple. Solicitors wouldn't earn so much if it was. Unless someone wants to spend the money and find out I guess we won't know either way. I would have hoped they wouldn't have said anything if they had absolutely no reason though.