How should shops refund you, when a gift card partly paid for your items?

unholyangel

Fosterdog wrote: »

Unless it was a one time use voucher code, gift card has now expired, offer has expired, or a promotional gift card with terms attached. It also depends on whether it was an in store sale as they could have a refund policy stating no gift card purchases will be refunded, or any gift card value will be deducted from a refund. (Excluding claims under statutory rights).

Say it was a gift card with an expiry date of 31/12/2017 and you used it on 30/12/2017 then chose to return it on 1/1/2018, that gift card has expired and there is no law to say the expiration date of a gift card has to be extended, or that you have to be issued with a new gift card. Even if a refund could be forced, it could only be forced to a gift card that expired on 31/12/2017 so it would still be worthless to the customer.

Of course they are extreme examples, and not something I’ve ever actually come across but it wouldn’t necessarily be illegal for them to refund that way based on the above. Hopefully OP will come back and shed a bit more light on the actual situation for us.

As I said, if you are returning under CRA or CCRs (your statutory rights) then they would be acting illegally.

If its not possible for them to return it in an equivalent voucher then you would have a claim for damages. It really is that simple.

Fosterdog

unholyangel wrote: »

As I said, if you are returning under CRA or CCRs (your statutory rights) then they would be acting illegally.

If its not possible for them to return it in an equivalent voucher then you would have a claim for damages. It really is that simple.

It depends on whether the equivalent voucher would be classed as betterment, it’s not black and white that there would be a claim for damages. As I said I’m talking extreme example that are highly unlikely to ever occur but not impossible.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the gift cards that the body shop have given away free in magazines the last few years around Christmas time. It gives a unique code with a gift card value (I think between £5 and £25 as a luck of the draw scratch card type thing) if you were to purchase something using that card it is excluded from change of mind returns but even under your statutory rights it was a free gift card they issued as a promotion so you would not be entitled to a cash refund in its place and as they have a very short expiry date while the promotion runs, even putting you back in the original position will leave you with an expired code that cannot be used. Maybe they would offer a new gift card with a longer expiry date but they wouldn’t have to.

unholyangel

Fosterdog wrote: »

It depends on whether the equivalent voucher would be classed as betterment, it’s not black and white that there would be a claim for damages. As I said I’m talking extreme example that are highly unlikely to ever occur but not impossible.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the gift cards that the body shop have given away free in magazines the last few years around Christmas time. It gives a unique code with a gift card value (I think between £5 and £25 as a luck of the draw scratch card type thing) if you were to purchase something using that card it is excluded from change of mind returns but even under your statutory rights it was a free gift card they issued as a promotion so you would not be entitled to a cash refund in its place and as they have a very short expiry date while the promotion runs, even putting you back in the original position will leave you with an expired code that cannot be used. Maybe they would offer a new gift card with a longer expiry date but they wouldn’t have to.

A betterment is not a betterment when its an unavoidable consequence of restitution. Also, as the CRA is black type on white background, it pretty much is black & white that there could be a claim for damages

Lastly, if you have to buy a magazine to get the voucher, then its not free - you've paid consideration for it.

Fosterdog

unholyangel wrote: »

A betterment is not a betterment when its an unavoidable consequence of restitution. Also, as the CRA is black type on white background, it pretty much is black & white that there could be a claim for damages

Lastly, if you have to buy a magazine to get the voucher, then its not free - you've paid consideration for it.

Could be a claim not definitely is a claim

I’m not disagreeing that there could be a claim, I’m just also pointing out that there may not be a claim.

Only a judge can decide if it’s something they would award, some may, some may not. If you were the judge you would clearly based on your interpretation of the law award damages. If I were the judge, I may or may not depending on the exact circumstances based on my interpretation of the law.

It is still betterment even when unavoidable, it comes up regularly on the housing board around landlords deducting amounts from deposits that would allow for betterment and it has been proven time and again that betterment, even where unavoidable, doesn’t stand up against the arbitrator of deposit schemes, nor against judges where it has gone to court.

I understand that housing/rental laws and consumer laws are different, but claims for damages are quite complex cases and nobody can know how a judge will decide on the day particularly in the most complex cases.

unholyangel

Fosterdog wrote: »

Could be a claim not definitely is a claim

I’m not disagreeing that there could be a claim, I’m just also pointing out that there may not be a claim.

Only a judge can decide if it’s something they would award, some may, some may not. If you were the judge you would clearly based on your interpretation of the law award damages. If I were the judge, I may or may not depending on the exact circumstances based on my interpretation of the law.

It is still betterment even when unavoidable, it comes up regularly on the housing board around landlords deducting amounts from deposits that would allow for betterment and it has been proven time and again that betterment, even where unavoidable, doesn’t stand up against the arbitrator of deposit schemes, nor against judges where it has gone to court.

I understand that housing/rental laws and consumer laws are different, but claims for damages are quite complex cases and nobody can know how a judge will decide on the day particularly in the most complex cases.

If you mean landlords perhaps making deductions from deposits for the full cost of replacement furnishings - that is not an unavoidable betterment because they could replace it with secondhand furnishings/assess the loss based on the secondhand value of the goods as they were.

There is extensive case law on the matter.

For example Lord Denning in Harbutts Plasticine v Wayne Tank & Pump said:

If a second-hand car is destroyed, the owner only gets its value; because he can go into the market and get another second-hand car to replace it. He cannot charge the other party with the cost of replacing it with a new car. But when this mill was destroyed, the plasticine company had no choice. They were bound to replace it as soon as they could, not only to keep their business going, but also to mitigate the loss of profit (for which they would be able to charge to defendants). They replaced it in the only possible way, without adding any extras. I think they should be allowed the cost of replacement. True it is that they got new for old; but I do not think the wrongdoer can diminish the claim on that account. If they had added extra accommodation or made extra improvements, they would have to give credit. But that is not this case.

In the same judgement it was stated:

It was clear in the present case that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to rebuild their factory, because there was no other way in which they could carry on their business and retain their labour force. The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the cost of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of ‘betterment’ for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and materials. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them. Accordingly I agree with the sum allowed by the trial judge as the cost of replacement

So even if you are better off if its truly unavoidable (and not just a landlord trying to pull a fast one), then it is not classed as betterment by the law.

ETA: The essence of betterment is that the damages go further than required to restore the innocent party. If the damages are required to restore them then its not betterment, its restitution.

Michelle1689

Hi I’ve recently bought a car seat from boots and I paid £60 with gift cards and £100 on my debit card. My mum has bought me the same car seat but got it cheaper. When I take the car seat back how will my money be refunded? Many thanks

Michelle1689

Hi I’ve recently bought a car seat from boots and I paid £60 with gift cards and £100 on my debit card. My mum has bought me the same car seat but got it cheaper. When I take the car seat back how will my money be refunded? Many thanks

Greta_Sharbo

Maybe won't be refunded at all if it was bought in store (which is how it reads)

If they choose to reimburse they could do it all in gift cards/credit notes if they want - no-one really knows except boots.