Faulty shoes, no receipt

Ergates

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that.  Also, under the situation you've described, that wouldn't even work for them - as the person would have the till receipt for the shoes.  This issue here is that the OP doesn't have the original receipt.

What JL are suggesting here is the OP bought the shoes from somewhere else and found that they were faulty, but rather than take them back to where he bought them he's taking them back to JL, where he just so happened to have bought another, entirely different, item that cost the exact same amount of money as the shoes in question.

Advocado

Ergates said:

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that. 

Is the law very clear?

I can find lots of websites that reference how you don't need a receipt (Which, This Is Money etc.) but I can't actually find the specific part in the CRA.  Can anyone help?

Advocado

Ergates said:

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that. 

Is the law very clear?

I can find lots of websites that reference how you don't need a receipt (Which, This Is Money etc.) but I can't actually find the specific part in the CRA.  Can anyone help?

neilmcl

Ergates said:

neilmcl said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Or maybe the OP should stop having a conversation with them and get on and send an LBA.

The OP can send an email then prepare the LBA whilst they wait for a response, doing one does not preclude the other.

It's a pointless exercise doing the former when you're giving them the opportunity to do the correct thing with the latter, why waste the time and effort.

neilmcl

Advocado said:

Ergates said:

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that. 

Is the law very clear?

I can find lots of websites that reference how you don't need a receipt (Which, This Is Money etc.) but I can't actually find the specific part in the CRA.  Can anyone help?

It's not specifically a part of the CRA, it's a standard part of contract law in general that you are required to prove you are a party to the contract in question. All that is required is sufficient proof based on the balance of probabilities that you purchased these shoes, from JL, on the day/time in question.

Advocado

neilmcl said:

Advocado said:

Ergates said:

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that. 

Is the law very clear?

I can find lots of websites that reference how you don't need a receipt (Which, This Is Money etc.) but I can't actually find the specific part in the CRA.  Can anyone help?

It's not specifically a part of the CRA, it's a standard part of contract law in general that you are required to prove you are a party to the contract in question. All that is required is sufficient proof based on the balance of probabilities that you purchased these shoes, from JL, on the day/time in question.

So it's ambiguous?

JL are telling me that their terms are that I need to produce the receipt.  If the law doesn't specifically say I can produce a bank statement as proof, then who's to say threatening legal action would work?

A judge could agree with them - it proves I spent some money there, but doesn't prove I bought those shoes.

user1977

Advocado said:

neilmcl said:

Advocado said:

Ergates said:

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that. 

Is the law very clear?

I can find lots of websites that reference how you don't need a receipt (Which, This Is Money etc.) but I can't actually find the specific part in the CRA.  Can anyone help?

It's not specifically a part of the CRA, it's a standard part of contract law in general that you are required to prove you are a party to the contract in question. All that is required is sufficient proof based on the balance of probabilities that you purchased these shoes, from JL, on the day/time in question.

So it's ambiguous?

JL are telling me that their terms are that I need to produce the receipt.  If the law doesn't specifically say I can produce a bank statement as proof, then who's to say threatening legal action would work?

A judge could agree with them - it proves I spent some money there, but doesn't prove I bought those shoes.

JL's "terms" are irrelevant to your statutory rights.

As we've explained, ultimately a court would decide on the balance of probabilities whether you had in fact bought the item from the retailer. You could in theory even have a till receipt, but the court decide that you're trying the fraud suggested above where the item you're returning isn't actually the one the receipt was for. So yes it's ambiguous in the sense that nobody can ever give you a 100% answer of what a judge might think, but your story certainly seems more plausible than JL's preferred version of events.

screech_78

I had already advised you previously that JL can bring up the transaction on their system. You only need the date of purchase and the last 4 digits of the payment card - this will bring up the exact item you purchased. A rough time of your purchase will make it even quicker for them. 

Email the head of customer service team. Customer Service don’t have access to the branch pos systems. You’ll need to return the shoes to branch (either by post or in person) however once you have authorisation from the customer relations team, it’ll be fairly simple. 

Advocado

screech_78 said:

I had already advised you previously that JL can bring up the transaction on their system. You only need the date of purchase and the last 4 digits of the payment card - this will bring up the exact item you purchased. A rough time of your purchase will make it even quicker for them. 

Email the head of customer service team. Customer Service don’t have access to the branch pos systems. You’ll need to return the shoes to branch (either by post or in person) however once you have authorisation from the customer relations team, it’ll be fairly simple. 

I’ve been told this isn’t the case.  How do you know they can?  Have you worked there?  I really feel like their customer service is just fobbing me off.

They just keep telling me that if I had a JL card I’d have a digital copy of my receipt.  But without the original receipt there’s nothing they can do.

I’ve asked for the contact of someone so I can escalate the issue and they’ve not replied (it’s been three days now).  So how can I get the contact of the head of the customer service team if they don’t give it?!

Advocado

user1977 said:

Advocado said:

neilmcl said:

Advocado said:

Ergates said:

NBLondon said:

Ergates said:

There is nothing in the legislation that mentions branding

Maybe turn this back on to them:   Can you please indicate which part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 legislation indicates that my statutory rights to return faulty goods are void if the item in question is branded?

Or something like that.

Surely that means "not a JL branded" item so still could have bought it elsewhere.

JL also have to protect themselves against a scammer with a counterfeit item that was bought elsewhere e.g.  Customer buys knock-off pair for £19.99 at the market and they start to come apart;  Customer then buys genuine item from JL (thus triggering the payment record); waits a week and tries to get a refund by returning the knock-off pair.

Not suggesting that the OP is doing this of course.

The fact that a previous branch of JL accepted a statement as proof of purchase does not mean any other branch has to do so - they did that when there was a risk of bad publicity in a national newspaper column...

They might *want* to do that - but the law is very clear that they're *not allowed* to do that. 

Is the law very clear?

I can find lots of websites that reference how you don't need a receipt (Which, This Is Money etc.) but I can't actually find the specific part in the CRA.  Can anyone help?

It's not specifically a part of the CRA, it's a standard part of contract law in general that you are required to prove you are a party to the contract in question. All that is required is sufficient proof based on the balance of probabilities that you purchased these shoes, from JL, on the day/time in question.

So it's ambiguous?

JL are telling me that their terms are that I need to produce the receipt.  If the law doesn't specifically say I can produce a bank statement as proof, then who's to say threatening legal action would work?

A judge could agree with them - it proves I spent some money there, but doesn't prove I bought those shoes.

JL's "terms" are irrelevant to your statutory rights.

As we've explained, ultimately a court would decide on the balance of probabilities whether you had in fact bought the item from the retailer. You could in theory even have a till receipt, but the court decide that you're trying the fraud suggested above where the item you're returning isn't actually the one the receipt was for. So yes it's ambiguous in the sense that nobody can ever give you a 100% answer of what a judge might think, but your story certainly seems more plausible than JL's preferred version of events.

I really don’t want to go to small claims court over some bad stitching on a pair of £60 shoes, but they’re just not budging.  

Surely a company like JL knows the law??  I worry there’s something they know that I don’t.