Tesco's Canvas Photo Centre Refused a Refund Help and advice please

bris

Post 13 is also gibberish, since when has it been illegal for retailers to offer a remedy? Show me please.

The time for rejection was when the remedy was offered, the op could have said no, refund please but they didnt they accepted it.

halibut2209

And no one is denying that.

I do get that TR tends to post incorrect advise a lot of the time, but in this case it appears (to me at least) that he is saying that the canvas COULD have been rejected for a full refund under SOGA at the start, but that ended once a reprint had been accepted.

Post #2 implied that as it was a personalised item, the OP didn't have the right (at first) to reject. That is incorrect.

mattyprice4004

Owookie wrote: »

I'm fuming about this. I thought I was well within my rights to change my mind. Especially if I am not happy and the product was flawed?????

Especially if you're not happy? So you assume you can just change your mind whenever you want, and the company has to agree?

That's not the way the world works I'm afraid, if it was it'd cause a lot of problems!

whitegoods_engineer

Let's get this straight. OP complained, ACCEPTED a REPLACEMENT, then later, asked for a discount on the already accepted offer of a replacement.

I hate to be on Tesco's side, but in this instance, the discount offered is more than Tesco had to give, so the OP really has nothing to complain about!

unholyangel

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Let's get this straight. OP complained, ACCEPTED a REPLACEMENT, then later, asked for a discount on the already accepted offer of a replacement.

I hate to be on Tesco's side, but in this instance, the discount offered is more than Tesco had to give, so the OP really has nothing to complain about!

Personally I dont think its as simple as that.

If (for example) tesco only offered a repair then arguably they were misleading OP about their statutory rights. However if tesco offered refund or replacement as options and OP chose replacement, then thats an entirely different story.

People may say its not the retailers obligation to inform the consumer as to their rights however given that its a criminal offence to mislead a consumer about their statutory rights AND that documentation about the new legislation states that part of its purpose is to make it cheaper for retailers to train their staff in consumer rights, i think its pretty evident that retailers are not supposed to only offer less than the law permits....