Retailer refusing return

Aylesbury_Duck

societys_child wrote: »

Why would anyone ask a question on public forums, then try to dictate who can comment? Odd.

Because they're our soles?

Aylesbury_Duck

tangotonyb wrote: »

Oh and I would politely request anyone who doesn't have DIRECT experience of this please refrain from commenting.

Because you're so polite....

I'm afraid I have no DIRECT experience of buying shoes that don't fit, so I will refrain from commenting.

Oops. "lol".

tangotonyb

unholyangel wrote: »

So when you refer to DSRs, you know what you're talking about but when I refer to CCRs (which you say is just a different official title and the law hasn't changed - it has but I'll ignore that for now), I don't know what I'm talking about? What a bizarre position to be taking, just to try and save face.

You stated I needed to prove the shoes were in breach of contract - that is total !!!!!!!!. I don't need to prove ANYTHING other than the fact that I entered into a distance selling contract within the last 14 days that I now wish to cancel.

unholyangel

tangotonyb wrote: »

You stated I needed to prove the shoes were in breach of contract - that is total !!!!!!!!. I don't need to prove ANYTHING other than the fact that I entered into a distance selling contract within the last 14 days that I now wish to cancel.

No, I responded to a poster who suggested that you claim the goods were not as described, by stating it wouldn't be appropriate in the circumstances - particularly when there is the CCRs (and the right to cancel conferred by those regulations).

Judging by your previous and most recent responses, you need to stop acting your shoe size and start acting your age.

Donhilton

Come on its election week and your fight over some shoes. Maybe you should refrain from buying until your 100% confident that your going to buy the shoes.

It's ruin the experience for someone else who probley wanted the shoes. It's seem like you like to buy, show off for a couple of days and then return.

Are you really going to court over 1 pair of shoes?. Are you desperate for money back if you are then I am here to help. Don't want you to get into financial trouble over a pair of shoes

Donhilton

Come on its election week and your fighting over some shoes. Maybe you should refrain from buying until your 100% confident that your going to buy shoes.

It's ruin the experience for someone else who probley wanted the shoes. It's seem like you like to buy, show off for a couple of days and then return.

Are you really going to court over 1 pair of shoes?. Are you desperate for money back if you are then I am here to help. Don't want you to get into any financial difficulty over a pair of shoes

waamo

unholyangel wrote: »

No, I responded to a poster who suggested that you claim the goods were not as described, by stating it wouldn't be appropriate in the circumstances - particularly when there is the CCRs (and the right to cancel conferred by those regulations).

Judging by your previous and most recent responses, you need to stop acting your shoe size and start acting your age.

That isn't actually what I was suggesting however to explain further would assist the op, something which I am rather disinclined to do now.

DoaM

waamo wrote: »

That isn't actually what I was suggesting however to explain further would assist the op, something which I am rather disinclined to do now.

Reading the post Devil Woman quoted, I'm minded to agree with her interpretation of what you said. Not "fit for purpose" (or more accurately, "not as described" - they are shoes so they're fit for purpose) would fall under the Consumer Rights Act, the short term right to reject, which means the OP would need to prove that the fault existed. How would they prove that what was labelled size 9 (for example) actually wasn't size 9?

Hence her suggestion of using the CCRs was the better route to take. And actually, she was agreeing with the OP, but he/she was too "obnoxious and opinionated" to realise.

waamo

DoaM wrote: »

Reading the post Devil Woman quoted, I'm minded to agree with her interpretation of what you said. Not "fit for purpose" (or more accurately, "not as described" - they are shoes so they're fit for purpose) would fall under the Consumer Rights Act, the short term right to reject, which means the OP would need to prove that the fault existed. How would they prove that what was labelled size 9 (for example) actually wasn't size 9?

Hence her suggestion of using the CCRs was the better route to take. And actually, she was agreeing with the OP, but he/she was too "obnoxious and opinionated" to realise.

I agree, I was thinking out loud and didn't bother to quote bits I was commenting on as I'm useless at multi quoting. It wasn't meant as an actual suggestion more a simple musing. Not that it particularly matters or is important. The important thing is the vile and disgusting language from the op has been removed.

Ps sorry for being thick but who is Devil Woman?

DoaM

waamo wrote: »

Ps sorry for being thick but who is Devil Woman?

It's a nickname I've always used for unholyangel

PS - I see the OP's status has updated.