Am I entitled to a full refund?

YDK84

Good afternoon all,

Hope you can help with this query as it's been ongoing for quite some time as you'll read below!

I've deliberately excluded detailed information on prices/brands/merchants however can disclose if of importance.

I purchased a jacket from a retailer in November 2012 on a credit card.

I wore the garment once, and due to no fault of my own (honest ) it became dirty so I had to wash it.

Now I spent a fair whack on this jacket so suffice to say I followed the specific process listed for washing the jacket, and removed the attachable hood, washing separately.

After the wash (one wash remember) the jacket bled lots of colour, where originally it was black parts of it took on an almost grey hue. Also the the shape of the jacket was compromised, there were no straight lines, it looked like it had been wrung out and left in a ball before unfolding into a creased mess. Even the separated hood lining became bobbled in its separate wash!

I first made contact with the merchant at the beginning of last year regarding the issue and sent them several pictures. Their customer service team agreed with me, the jacket shouldn't be in the condition it is after one wash. They wanted me to send the jacket into them for further investigation. Upon receiving the jacket they called me and told me it definitely looked faulty and shouldn't be in that condition. They stated that they'd require further investigation but they'd be in touch as something wasn't right.

A couple of weeks passed and I get a call from them, they won't be refunding me as they've never seen the issue before on any of the other jackets they've sold, and it must be me who's at fault.

Numerous correspondence has been exchanged back and forth over the past few months with them, I'm adamant that I'm telling the truth because to be quite frank I am!

I've even threatened them with legal action, however they really nonchalant about the thing and weren't moved by my threat at all. I am aware that legal action may end up costing more than the price of the jacket anyway, even in small claims court I'd still need to pay a mediator, is that right?

Anyway I've contacted the manufacturer and they've said they can't help, my gripe is with the merchant.

Bit stuck as to what to do here because even though it's over a year and a half ago, the principle of the matter is they sold me a duff product and called me a liar!

Any help would be much appreciated!

frugal_mike

Whether or not you can demand a full refund will depend on whether or not 'acceptance' occurred. In either case you are definitely due a remedy of some form if the retailer cannot prove it was your fault. "We've never seen this before so it must be your fault" is not proof in my (not legally trained) opinion.

So, onto 'acceptance'. That is a term defined in the Sale of Goods Act. Before acceptance occurs a consumer has the right to reject goods for a full refund if they do not conform to contract. Acceptance occurs in a number of ways, but most commonly after a reasonable amount of time has passed or when the consumer does something that is inconsistent with the sellers ownership of the coat.

If acceptance did not occur you are owed a full refund. If it did then the retailer must repair (seems unlikely), replace or refund. In the latter case the retailer can reduce the refund to account for usage.

So the question is, did a 'reasonable' amount of time pass before you reported the problem, and did washing the coat count as 'inconsistent with the sellers ownership'?

In either case you are owed something if they can't prove it was your fault. In the first 6 months after purchase it is the retailer's responsibility to prove the customer was at fault if they want to refuse a remedy, and you reported the fault within 6 months.

You say you paid by credit card. How much was the coat? If more than £100 then you are in luck. The credit card company will be jointly responsible for your contract with the retailer. You can make a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.

bris

frugal_mike wrote: »

Whether or not you can demand a full refund will depend on whether or not 'acceptance' occurred. In either case you are definitely due a remedy of some form if the retailer cannot prove it was your fault. "We've never seen this before so it must be your fault" is not proof in my (not legally trained) opinion.

That's not true, the op bought the coat in 2012 so acceptance has certainly occurred and now the op must prove the garment is faulty through no fault of their own.

The industry use thorough testing to make sure this does not happen under normal washing conditions and it's true that they use other cases to determine if it's faulty or not, no other cases, then the user is blamed and it's not often they are wrong.

I was in menswear retail for a long time and it's very rare for the garment to be to blame.

frugal_mike

bris wrote: »

That's not true, the op bought the coat in 2012 so acceptance has certainly occurred and now the op must prove the garment is faulty through no fault of their own.

You're missing the fact that the fault occurred on the first wash and was made known to the retailer possibly within a month of purchase. It's possible that acceptance had not occurred, but its certain that it is not the OP's responsibility to prove the fault was inherent. The fault occurred and was reported in the first six months. The only issue would be whether the OP has evidence of that still.

As to whether a lack of evidence it has happened before is adequate proof its op's fault, I'm not qualified to say. However it is common for people on here to use evidence of other people suffering similar faults to the one they are experiencing as evidence their product is inherently faulty. We always tell them that isn't good enough. I don't see why clothes companies should be treated differently. Evidence of being washed at a high temperature or with incorrect chemicals would seem more acceptable.

shaun_from_Africa

bris wrote: »

That's not true, the op bought the coat in 2012 so acceptance has certainly occurred and now the op must prove the garment is faulty through no fault of their own.

Nope. The onus is on the retailer to prove that any damage was caused by the OP and there is no obligation for the OP to prove anything.

The problem was brought to the retailers attention within a few months of purchase.
The jacket was bought in November 2012 and first contact with the retailer was made "at the beginning of last year" (so early 2013).

YDK84

Thanks for all of the replies!

I have bought many items of clothing from this manufacturer and I've never really had any major issues before with quality however having spent the amount I did on the jacket I'm going to make sure I wash it according to the instructions!

The retailer are digging their heels in so I guess my best option is to go via Tesco Bank, as luckily I did purchase the item via credit card.

Mike, do you happen to know the process for this, simply ringing customer services and logging a case or is there a rigorous procedure to follow?

peachyprice

frugal_mike wrote: »

It's possible that acceptance had not occurred

The fact that OP wore the jacket is enough for acceptance to have occurred. If he'd left it hanging in the wardrobe with the tags on and it developed a fault, possibly not, but he accepted it, wore it, got it dirty and washed it. That is far too much activity for acceptance not to have occurred.

However, as the fault developed within the first 6 months of purchase the onus is on the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't inherent, not for OP to prove it was.

frugal_mike

I have never done it myself, but I suggest you call your card provider and tell them you want to make a Section 75 claim. They will have a procedure, probably a form to fill in.

You will need to make sure you provide all relevant evidence. Proof of purchase (although they should see the transaction on their records), and evidence of the dates you contacted the retailer etc.

Others here will probably be able to give a better guide, or maybe a web search might find one.

shaun_from_Africa

peachyprice wrote: »

The fact that OP wore the jacket is enough for acceptance to have occurred.

I don't agree that simply wearing the jacket implies acceptance of it.
The SOGA states that you must have a reasonable time to inspect goods to ensure that thet conform to contract and if you were not able to wear clothing as part of this inspection how would you know for sure that it was correctly described? If something was described as 100% waterproof, how could you confirm this without wearing it in the rain?

Where would you draw the line. You've bought a car and driven it home so have accepted it? Or purchased a tv and turned it on therefore acceptance has occurred?

I agree that the washing of the jacket has shown that the OP had accepted ownership of the jacket but I don't agree that simply wearing it has the same effect.

JJ_Egan

Their must be a time scale involved .
I have stuff hanging in the wardrobe for a couple of years before wearing . I also have waterproof coats that may be worn ten times before it rains .

shaun_from_Africa

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Their must be a time scale involved .
I have stuff hanging in the wardrobe for a couple of years before wearing . I also have waterproof coats that may be worn ten times before it rains .

No fixed timescale as such. All that the Sale of goods act states is a "reasonable opportunity" to examine the goods to check that they are as described and according to Trading Standards, this times can vary depending on the type of goods.

The law does not specify what is 'reasonable' and ultimately a court would determine this based on the facts of each case.