Just been sold a used item!

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Nope, not married to a lawyer.

Not sure how they can be prosecuted for selling goods that aren't as described - given I've never seen any shop describing anything they sell as "brand new, unused & unworn"

Now a consumer may have a right to a repair/replacement/refund/price reduction if the goods didn't match their description or failed to meet a standard regarded as satisfactory by a reasonable person, but that doesn't equate to a criminal prosecution for the retailer.

Please explain how Dixons were prosecuted then http://www.independent.co.uk/news/consumers-warned-over-used-goods-sold-as-new-1345914.html

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

Please explain how Dixons were prosecuted then http://www.independent.co.uk/news/consumers-warned-over-used-goods-sold-as-new-1345914.html

Where do you want me to start?

Surrey successfully prosecuted Dixons for selling a video recorder as new when it had been returned as faulty.

They sold it as new. Apparently they have a system where they mark returned goods as second hand. I'm sure you can also appreciate that theres a difference between clothes and electricals - not just in the items themselves but also with the way they are sold.

Can't remember the last electrical shop I was in that had fitting rooms, can you?

daytona0

Zandoni wrote: »

Please explain how Dixons were prosecuted then http://www.independent.co.uk/news/consumers-warned-over-used-goods-sold-as-new-1345914.html

I think you have a point... some companies can be dodgy and pass off second hand items as new.

In this situation I think it is slight different because the only two disputes by the OP related to the tags (which can be replaced with company tags and still be new) and also a bandana in the pocket. There hasn't been a complaint about the quality apart from that and everything relating to the bandana is speculation. In short, it isn't a glaring mistake like your table example.

In order for the item to be second hand, the company would either need to check the return to 'make sure they can pass it off as new' and such a check would yield the bandana. That or they've just had a really quick glance and possibly missed out some bigger faults (but OP didn't dispute such damage).

Or it could be that the stock was as new as you'd expect a jacket to be (one which was displayed in a shop) and the bandana has found its way inside the pocket through an error.

Going back to the OP, I don't know what the OP is seeking. Sure they *may* have gotten a second hand jacket BUT it presumably does the job without any damage. They got what they wanted and also got a free bandana too! Also, I don't think that OP is a clear cut case of the company being dodgy, unlike your example.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Where do you want me to start?

Surrey successfully prosecuted Dixons for selling a video recorder as new when it had been returned as faulty.

They sold it as new. Apparently they have a system where they mark returned goods as second hand. I'm sure you can also appreciate that theres a difference between clothes and electricals - not just in the items themselves but also with the way they are sold.

Can't remember the last electrical shop I was in that had fitting rooms, can you?

The difference is you assume that the goods were just tried on, I feel they were more than tried on because tags were missing and a bandana was in the pocket. This could mean that it was worn and could be dirty, only the OP can tell us that.

There are many electrical stores with changing rooms, they are specialist HiFi shops

BykerSands

Zandoni wrote: »

The difference is you assume that the goods were just tried on, I feel they were more than tried on because tags were missing and a bandana was in the pocket. This could mean that it was worn and could be dirty, only the OP can tell us that.

There are many electrical stores with changing rooms, they are specialist HiFi shops

That's all you have a feeling. No actual evidence of it being more than tried on.

Zandoni

BykerSands wrote: »

That's all you have a feeling. No actual evidence of it being more than tried on.

My feelings are usually pretty accurate.

I wonder who you are, so many people have so many user names.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

The difference is you assume that the goods were just tried on, I feel they were more than tried on because tags were missing and a bandana was in the pocket. This could mean that it was worn and could be dirty, only the OP can tell us that.

There are many electrical stores with changing rooms, they are specialist HiFi shops

I make no assumptions. What I am saying is that you should not assume that the goods have been used rather than just tried on.

You do not know that the goods have been used so therefore you are assuming (although I do appreciate how you worded the above post so I assume and you "feel" )

BykerSands

Ronnie Pickering.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

I make no assumptions. What I am saying is that you should not assume that the goods have been used rather than just tried on.

You do not know that the goods have been used so therefore you are assuming (although I do appreciate how you worded the above post so I assume and you "feel" )

But you are making assumptions, you are assuming the goods have just been tried on. If you try something on you should not remove the labels. A lot of shops with good customer service are reluctant to refund customers if labels have been removed.

gollum007

unholyangel wrote: »

Where do you want me to start?

Surrey successfully prosecuted Dixons for selling a video recorder as new when it had been returned as faulty.

They sold it as new. Apparently they have a system where they mark returned goods as second hand. I'm sure you can also appreciate that theres a difference between clothes and electricals - not just in the items themselves but also with the way they are sold.

Can't remember the last electrical shop I was in that had fitting rooms, can you?

I'd be willing to bet that most of that article is journalistic hot air.
No sources, just an anonymous 'Spokesman', and passing references to two cases without any of the legal background.

The thrust of the prosecutions mentioned is going to have been for failings under the data protection act, in other words the TV licence and non-wiped telephone numbers in the phone's memory, *not* the rather spurious quote from a DFT official mentioned above.
That quote sounds much more sensational though :eek:

As far as I'm aware, there is no definition in law of the word 'new'

-Gollum