We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help please with unscrupulous retailer
Comments
-
-
By the looks of it, the OP has gone beyond that option. If they have gone in demanding this and that, the shops back will be well up and they wont get anything now.Going back to the OP's question....
I'd advise writing a letter to the customer services team. Explain the situation, ask them if they can waive their usual policy in this situation and put the item back into stock, unopened, and issue a refund.
I'd suggest mentioning that other companies offer this option, Richer Sounds, for example, will refund in full if the box has not been opened (though they charge 15% if it has as they would discount it to sell it on) within 14 days of sale.
You have no legal leg to stand on, so go for gentle persuasion and trying to be reasonable and asking for reasonableness in response.
Good luck.
If the OP is like a number of customers I have had over the years, the next step will be accept the goods, but then return them as 'Faulty' and demand a refund, which wont work, as Litecraft check every return, prior to refunding.0 -
They done very slightly more than the law requires which is not enough to make them a good retailer.
By George, I think Zandoni's got it (finally). :rotfl:
It's not about whether they are a good retailer or not (I don't happen to agree with you on that but that's neither here nor there).
The OP clearly thought she was legally entitled to a refund because she no longer wanted the lights.
I'm sure she is now clear about what her rights are.
It wasn't 'terrible' at all.In this instance it was terrible that they didn't give the OP the money back, it such a shame that so many people on here can't see that.
That's your opinion but most of the other posters don't agree with you on that so it's not a case of it being 'a shame that so many people can't see it'.
We simply don't agree with you.Consumer problems are not always about the letter of the law I have had great success with so called goodwill gestures when I have been wronged by a retailer.
But in this case, the OP hasn't been 'wronged by a retailer', has she?
She's changed her mind.
The retailer has offered more than legally obliged to offer.
That's nothing like the scenario in this thread so has no relevance.Once I bought something from Argos and it's price dropped dramatically the next day. I phoned Argos HO and after a bit of a discussion I got them to reimburse the difference. If I'd asked advice of people here I would have been told tough luck.0 -
By George, I think Zandoni's got it (finally). :rotfl:
It's not about whether they are a good retailer or not (I don't happen to agree with you on that but that's neither here nor there).
The OP clearly thought she was legally entitled to a refund because she no longer wanted the lights.
I'm sure she is now clear about what her rights are.
It wasn't 'terrible' at all.
That's your opinion but most of the other posters don't agree with you on that so it's not a case of it being 'a shame that so many people can't see it'.
We simply don't agree with you.
But in this case, the OP hasn't been 'wronged by a retailer', has she?
She's changed her mind.
The retailer has offered more than legally obliged to offer.
That's nothing like the scenario in this thread so has no relevance.
If you nip back to my first post (24) you will clearly see that I said they were acting legally so there was nothing to get :rotfl:
It's fine you don't agree with me but you should have the courtesy to allow people to have different opinions.
I still feel that this company acted unfairly, considering the OP hadn't taken the goods away. That is my opinion and it will not change.0 -
Yes there was.If you nip back to my first post (24) you will clearly see that I said they were acting legally so there was nothing to get :rotfl:
In your post #24, you stated that 'This company is doing what the law requires'.
My point (which you still seem to be struggling with) was that they were doing more than the law requires.
And the same goes for you. That's a bit rich from someone who's posted this:It's fine you don't agree with me but you should have the courtesy to allow people to have different opinions.I like to disagree with the gang culture of this site, which never has any sympathy for people and usually takes the shops side.
And that's fine by me.I still feel that this company acted unfairly, considering the OP hadn't taken the goods away. That is my opinion and it will not change.
But I'm responding based on what the law says, not a 'touchy-feely, lovey-dovey' perspective.We also all have rights to complain further than our legal rights.
Absolutely.
But when you do complain further than your legal rights, don't be surprised if you get knocked-back.0 -
Sorry no I don't think it is unfair at all. Since this happened this morning I have read lots of reviews on this company and people have had no end of trouble with them. Wish I had read them in the beginning before visiting.
Yes we made a mistake, we are human. The store is deceptive as all large stores are in the size of goods look small in comparison to the vastness of the space they have. We paid and then changed or minds. The goods are still with them its not like we have got them home and unpackaged them and then decided differently. We are to blame yes for part of it but it is dreadful customer care to not offer a refund as the goods are still with them. (It wasn't our choice not to have them two days ago)
It has left a very bad taste in my mouth. It would have been no harm at all to give a refund it has surprised me to learn there are no legal rights for this on an unopened and unused product.
Guess we are so used to decent companies these days with excellent returns policies that I assumed it was a legal requirement.
Except of course the fees they will be charged by the credit card company for doing these transactionsVuja De - the feeling you'll be here later0 -
Yes there was.
In your post #24, you stated that 'This company is doing what the law requires'.
My point (which you still seem to be struggling with) was that they were doing more than the law requires.
A little more than law requires but not enough to make them a good company to deal with. How many more times do you want me to say it.0 -
A little more than law requires but not enough to make them a good company to deal with. How many more times do you want me to say it.
Actually, I'd like you to be accurate with what you post.
If a company is sticking to the letter of the law, then sayThis company is doing what the law requires.
If a company is doing more than the law requires then say that.
It's not hard, is it?0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards