Store Refusing Refund

Kscotney

Yesterday (Saturday 14th December) we bought a H2O Mop X5 from The Range after seeing it advertised on the tv via a product demonstration and it looked quite good.

The product cost us £100 and we paid via our Debit Card

We got it home and we tried the product, however the product was very disappointing and didn't really do the job that we were anticipating. I packaged the product back in all its original packaging and returned it to the store and explained the the product didn't meet our expectations. The lady on customer services said that she it was fine, but because the value of the product was greater than £29.99 she would need the manager to ok it and check the product.

The manager came along and after speaking with the lady on customer services, came to me and said they can't refund me because the product was used, and they only refund faulty items. I then said so I've bought a product for £100 that didn't meet my expectations and I can't return it and he said No, at which point I left the store.

The wording on the receipt says with this receipt we will be happy to refund or exchange unsuitable goods, provided they are returned within 28 days of purchase and all packaging is intact. As it's not what we expected it to be, does this not make it unsuitable?

Ideally I would like to get my money back for it, as it's a lot of money for something that doesn't do the job in my eyes. So I'm just coming on here to ask do I have a leg stand on and what are my chances of getting a refund if I return to the store.

Any comments and help would be greatly appreciated.

unholyangel

You could argue the term "packaging intact" is ambiguous as they do not specifically mention unopened or unused. Where a term of a contract is ambiguous, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer will prevail.

The store manager is wrong though. Sale of Goods Act does not just cover faulty. It covers goods that do not conform to contract.

Goods many not conform to contract for different reasons. Whats important is that it lives up to any advertising/marketing. So if they sell the mop as doing something and it doesn't, you have a case for "not as described". The question is.....does it not live up to your expectations or does it not live up to its advertising?

Tyler_Du

Strictly speaking they are correct, if you'd purchased it online you could return it. Maybe return it to a different branch and say it's faulty.

hollydays

You've used this steam mop, how can they resell it? I would argue that the item is now not new.the fact you decided it's no good( I've tried steam mops and find these points-you have to drag them rather than push them and they still require physical effort to do this) suggests you should have done a lot more research.
However, you may have better luck contacting head office, or ask the shop if they will give you a credit note as a goodwill gesture-shops hate losing money but the credit note is an option they will often take.

ThumbRemote

There are two issues to consider here - your statutory rights under the sale of goods act, and the additional rights conferred by the terms of sale.

Under the Sale of goods act the relevant term is that a product must be "fit... for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied". So you have no automatic right to return a product that doesn't meet your expectations, unless they've claimed something specific that it doesn't do.

So if the mop doesn't clean as well as you'd like, unfortunately that's tough. On the other hand, if the packaging says it's only 2kg, but actually it weights 3kg, then you could return it.

Under your additional rights - I'd agree with unholyangel. It specifically doesn't say "unopened" or "unused". I'd be tempted to write to head office pointing this out.

mo786uk

Based on what the OP has said the TV advert bigged it up and it didnt do what it said it would.

In that case you do have a case for a refund as long as you can show what was advertised is not what you got. I refer you to Section 14 of the SOGA below

14 Implied terms about quality or fitness

(1) Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied [term] about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.
[(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.



(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a) which is specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made,
(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c) in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]



[(2D) If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.
(2E) A public statement is not by virtue of subsection (2D) above a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above in the case of a contract of sale, if the seller shows that—
(a) at the time the contract was made, he was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,
(b) before the contract was made, the statement had been withdrawn in public or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been corrected in public, or
(c) the decision to buy the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.



(2F) Subsections (2D) and (2E) above do not prevent any public statement from being a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above (whether or not the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, whether or not the contract of sale is a consumer contract) if the statement would have been such a circumstance apart from those subsections.]
(3) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known—
(a) to the seller, or
(b) where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker,



any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied [term] that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker.
(4) An implied [term] about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.
(5) The preceding provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.
[(6) As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the terms implied by subsections (2) and (3) above are conditions.]
(7) Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below applies in relation to a contract made on or after 18 May 1973 and before the appointed day, and paragraph 6 in relation to one made before 18th May 1973.
(8) In subsection (7) above and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below references to the appointed day are to the day appointed for the purposes of those provisions by an order of the Secretary of State made by statutory instrument.

hollydays

What didn't it do that it said it would though?

mo786uk

hollydays wrote: »

What didn't it do that it said it would though?

Mop. TV advet.

Probably well over egged how well it will peform.

hollydays

They do perform well , generally, just not in a way you may have preconceived-eg it's not like a vacuum cleaner that mops as you push.

ERICS_MUM

hollydays wrote: »

They do perform well , generally, just not in a way you may have preconceived-eg it's not like a vacuum cleaner that mops as you push.

nor as a carpet "shampoo-er", although some include carpet adapter but it usually stipulates this is to freshen-up carpets rather than give them a deep clean.

unholyangel

hollydays wrote: »

They do perform well , generally, just not in a way you may have preconceived-eg it's not like a vacuum cleaner that mops as you push.

But if the advert has said or implied it can do things it cant......its still not as described.

For instance, there was a mobile phone (Motorola I think?) that was advertised being dropped onto concrete with no damage.
It was decided the advert was misleading as actual phones dropped from 2-3ft onto floors softer than concrete were cracking/smashing.

In the same way if they show fantastic results by pushing the mop with as little effort as possible, you shouldn't have to drag it and scrub to get the same result.