Online retailer refusing to offer refund on January sale items.

powerful_Rogue

Woah! Calm down people!

Cant blame someone for quoting what is supposed to be a respected organisation such as Which!

The reason I finished with "Your turn" is because Slowhands original post of "Not true!!!" does nothing to help anyone. At least follow it up as you did in a subsequent post.

soolin

wealdroam wrote: »

What you say is right, but having a notice in a shop stating "all sale items are non-refundable" is likely to fall foul of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

This is because it creates the impression that there is no possibility of returning a sale item, when of course a faulty item can be returned for a remedy.

Marks and spencer have got away with it for years. All their final reductions marked with a blue star across the label are specifically excluded from their returns policy. The normal sale items are returnable though.

There are a few other high street shops that do the same.

frugal_mike

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Woah! Calm down people!

Cant blame someone for quoting what is supposed to be a respected organisation such as Which!

The reason I finished with "Your turn" is because Slowhands original post of "Not true!!!" does nothing to help anyone. At least follow it up as you did in a subsequent post.

I ended the post with a wink to indicate the post was meant to be light hearted, no offence intended

And yes, I'm surprised the Which article got it wrong.

Slowhand

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Woah! Calm down people!

Cant blame someone for quoting what is supposed to be a respected organisation such as Which!

The reason I finished with "Your turn" is because Slowhands original post of "Not true!!!" does nothing to help anyone. At least follow it up as you did in a subsequent post.

Your post was wrong, mine was correct, yet it was mine that wasn't helpful? oh well then I stand in the corner chastised. As FM says quote the legislation rather than a third party's interpretation. I knew what you said was wrong and posted a quick reply whilst I looked up the detail.

powerful_Rogue

Slowhand wrote: »

Your post was wrong, mine was correct, yet it was mine that wasn't helpful? oh well then I stand in the corner chastised. As FM says quote the legislation rather than a third party's interpretation. I knew what you said was wrong and posted a quick reply whilst I looked up the detail.

I quoted from Which? Consumer Rights - Which(!) considering their reputation you would expect them to have the right information.

Your original post was

Not true !!!

Which isnt helpful in the slightest. However had you posted:

Not true! Legislation actually says.........

So you say you posted it as you went to find out the correct legislation, im sure your post could have held on for a couple of minutes.

Anyway, not here to argue.

Brooker_Dave

Slowhand wrote: »

• goods that by reason of their nature cannot be returned

For example underwear.

Slowhand

frugal_mike wrote: »

I ended the post with a wink to indicate the post was meant to be light hearted, no offence intended

And yes, I'm surprised the Which article got it wrong.

Underwear/earrings/beds and DSR. I'm sure these all have come up several times on MSE before.

Slowhand

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

For example underwear.

Where in the legislation is that stated?

frugal_mike

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

For example underwear.

There's nothing about the nature of underwear that stops them being returned. You put them in an envelope and post them.

Brooker_Dave

Slowhand wrote: »

Where in the legislation is that stated?

This bit

"goods that by reason of their nature cannot be returned"

HTH.