Was sold two same-footed shoes, refused an exchange or refund

Amoku

I bought a pair of shoes from Sports-Direct for £55. I was busy with worklife so was not able to use them until I started my gym membership last night. When I went to put them on I discovered that they were both right-footed. I took them to the same store and they flat-out refused to do anything. They even checked the barcode and it was CLEARLY from that store. Yet they claimed that since I'm without a receipt, I have to throw the shoes away. I even asked them to just exchange ONE shoe for a left-footed one, 'NO' was their response.

I paid by cash so can't prove purchase from my bank statement. Surely I'm protected, it comes under faulty goods, doesn't it?

Thanks in advance for all help

unholyangel

Yes you are protected. However, proof of purchase is basically proof that a contract exists (and thus proof that the retailer has obligations towards you). Even if taking them to court you would be expected to provide some sort of proof of purchase (can even technically be an eyewitness who was there when you made the purchase but I doubt most retailers consider that as proof enough).

Amoku

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes you are protected. However, proof of purchase is basically proof that a contract exists (and thus proof that the retailer has obligations towards you). Even if taking them to court you would be expected to provide some sort of proof of purchase (can even technically be an eyewitness who was there when you made the purchase but I doubt most retailers consider that as proof enough).

But isn't the barcode, box and price tag proof enough, unless I infiltrated the stockroom, stole it, and walked out? By scanning the barcode, can they not see that it was actually purchased?

prowla

An original box is not a proof of purchase.

unholyangel

Amoku wrote: »

But isn't the barcode, box and price tag proof enough, unless I infiltrated the stockroom, stole it, and walked out? By scanning the barcode, can they not see that it was actually purchased?

But who's to say they haven't been sold as seconds and then subsequently sold to you by a third party?

Amoku

unholyangel wrote: »

But who's to say they haven't been sold as seconds and then subsequently sold to you by a third party?

Sorry, I don't understand what seconds means.

unholyangel

Amoku wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand what seconds means.

I confused matters needlessly. Ignore the seconds part. There is a possibility you have purchased them from a third party (from their point of view without proof of purchase to say otherwise)

How long ago did you purchase them btw?

As a last resort you could try writing to the retailer with the date and approximate time they were purchased (and which store) and they may be willing to look up their retailer copy.

Mulder00

Can you not find the receipt, it will make things endlessly easier for you...

Amoku

unholyangel wrote: »

I confused matters needlessly. Ignore the seconds part. There is a possibility you have purchased them from a third party (from their point of view without proof of purchase to say otherwise)

How long ago did you purchase them btw?

As a last resort you could try writing to the retailer with the date and approximate time they were purchased (and which store) and they may be willing to look up their retailer copy.

I purchased them around a month or so ago. The Guardian says that they have no right to demand a receipt for an exchange or refund for goods that aren't fit for service, and that even an witness is enough legally. Can I just take the person that was with me on the day and tell them that we were in the store together and she witnessed me buying the shoes?

Takeaway_Addict

Amoku wrote: »

I purchased them around a month or so ago. The Guardian says that they have no right to demand a receipt for an exchange or refund for goods that aren't fit for service, and that even an witness is enough legally. Can I just take the person that was with me on the day and tell them that we were in the store together and she witnessed me buying the shoes?

Because thieves never lie hey

I'm not calling you a thief but a person saying, 'yeah I saw him buy them' is not going to wash it.

You still need to prove they were purchased at the end of the day. Without a reciept its very hard for you to do this.

The fact is you have had them for a month or so and you should have spotted the error straight away rather than waiting because if you look from the companies point of view it's rather suspicious that you are now coming back them about it.

unholyangel

Amoku wrote: »

I purchased them around a month or so ago. The Guardian says that they have no right to demand a receipt for an exchange or refund for goods that aren't fit for service, and that even an witness is enough legally. Can I just take the person that was with me on the day and tell them that we were in the store together and she witnessed me buying the shoes?

A witness can be enough but that's not to say it will be enough. Small claims goes on the balance of probabilities. It would be up to the judge on the day as to whether the eyewitness account amounts to proof of purchase on that balance.

And the guardian is correct. They cannot demand a receipt. But they can demand proof of purchase.