No receipt = no rights ??

tinkerbell28

hollydays wrote: »

No it's not just typos you edited suddenly
Glad you came back, I didn't think I'd get the last word you offered.
Rather silly.

You can have the last word. You can have it now. I wanted to clarify your confusion at MSE editing a post, and my sudden "editing". The suggestion of anything sinister from your posts is unfounded.

I'm on my phone, so correcting typos when I read back and notice, also adding quotes is a pig on the phone, so you have to go back in twice.

All this because people took umbrage to my first post actually clarifying his rights and giving correct information. My goodness.

As I say the MSE removal was a quote of yours, I reported it and they removed it, which was just a one line insult. Personal insults just weaken the argument and are not necessary. All to try and prove an incorrect point on the internet rather than just saying actually I got it wrong. When other people will read that and maybe no further and think no receipt=no rights.

Rather silly indeed.

wealdroam

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

You're another confusing beyond all reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities.

Op has proof of purchase. A statement, so is entitled to a remedy under soga. That's the law. On the balance of probabilities his statement will be deemed proof. Especially with their response the court will take a dim view of tesco refusing to find the receipt and offer £5.

That part of soga, proof of purchase, is not beyond all reasonable doubt. I know you absolutely hate to be wrong or called out, but a statement is deemed proof of purchase. Which is why tesco should be offering a reasonable remedy for faulty goods.

But that's kind of irrelevant anyway as by the time it gets to claiming TESCO will "find" the receipt. Then offer a full remedy as being so obtuse and trying to diddle people who've lost the receipt, won't go far in court when it is "balance of probabilities" and the claimant has a statement.

OK, let's go through that line by line.

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

You're another confusing beyond all reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities.

No, I am not.
I fully understand the difference and cannot understand why you should think otherwise.

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Op has proof of purchase. A statement, so is entitled to a remedy under soga. That's the law. On the balance of probabilities his statement will be deemed proof.

Yes, I agree.
OP has proof of purchase.
OP is entitled to a remedy under S0GA.
And his bank statement will be accepted as proof of purchase.
I have no problem with any of that.

And as I said earlier, Tesco seem to have no problem with that either as they have offered the remedy of a full refund.
Of course we know they have only offered £5 refund, but that is simply because the OP, or his/her mother, cannot state with any certainty what the purchase price was.

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Especially with their response the court will take a dim view of tesco refusing to find the receipt and offer £5.

You may well be right... who knows?

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

That part of soga, proof of purchase, is not beyond all reasonable doubt.

Yes and I have agreed with that in every post.
Just to clarify, of course the OP has proof of purchase... there is no doubt about that.

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

I know you absolutely hate to be wrong or called out, but a statement is deemed proof of purchase.

I'll skip the first part of that as it adds nothing, and just repeat... "yes, I can see, and fully agree with you, there is a valid proof of purchase".

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Which is why tesco should be offering a reasonable remedy for faulty goods.

It appears to me that Tesco have so far said something like "we would like to offer you a full refund but without some confirmation of what the actual purchase price was, we can only offer a refund of our current selling price".

Now, it is my opinion that a statement like that would be accepted as perfectly reasonable by a court... should this get that far... which it won't.

As has been said many times, the OP's mother's best bet is to pursue this issue with Tesco's head office.

All I asked was why you thought Tesco should be responsible for finding out how much the OP's mother paid for the thing.
You told me "it's the law".
I'm still not convinced and still believe the law is silent on that.

bod1467

wealdroam wrote: »

All I asked was why you thought Tesco should be responsible for finding out how much the OP's mother paid for the thing.

I agree with all you have posted, except this last part. OP states how much was paid.

amazin79 wrote: »

this item cost £169.99 ... got my mum to track when she bought it on her bank statement

If Tesco can't prove OP's Mum did NOT pay this amount then they can't assume that the price NOW was the price THEN.

The reality is that it wouldn't take much effort for Tesco to find the transaction on their system - especially if the SKU and serial number of the actual item is available.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

Our Consumer Rights guide should help. If you ever need it to help answer someone's question it's at the top of the board.

Andrea

Ronneh

Yikes! This thread certainly took a wrong turn!

Not surprised by Tesco's behaviour, but surely all the proof needed is there!

JIreland

why not ask them to replace it instead? you still get the original item value

Cycrow

JIreland wrote: »

why not ask them to replace it instead? you still get the original item value

because its most likely a discontinued line, so they may not have any available to actually replace. Which is the most likely reason for the really low price.

JIreland

they will replace with a similar product if you ask nicely

tinkerbell28

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

Our Consumer Rights guide should help. If you ever need it to help answer someone's question it's at the top of the board.

Andrea

Indeed.

From said guide.

DON'T THINK 'NO RECEIPT' MEANS 'NO RETURN'

With faulty goods, you simply need to prove purchase. This could be the receipt, but any other legitimate record - such as a bank statement - should be fine.

However, if you've no legal right but are simply utilising a store's return policy, then you'll need a receipt if that's what the policy says.


Good luck op!