Can they do this!

cymruchris

sheramber said:

As B&Q could not identify the purchase of the paint from the bank statement payments there was no proof that she had bought it.

A payment of £x on a bank statement does not detail what was bought, just something with that value.

Even if they could not identify the purchase - they also couldn't identify it as their stock - as in stolen from them - and so shouldn't have held onto it. It may have said B&Q on the label - but that doesn't mean it belonged to that store. They were definitely in the wrong for holding onto the goods without giving a good reason. If the reason was they had evidence that it had been stolen - then they should have involved the relevant authorities. (And to the OP - I'm not in any way suggesting you did! But that they needed a reason to hold on to your item).

And yes a payment of £x on a bank statement doesn't detail what was bought, but for many retailers it would be accepted that a purchase had been made. I imagine B&Q went into their office, looked up the transactions, and couldn't find the relevant product. From the OP's account it seems like they are a regular B&Q customer with at least 3 transactions to their name, so there's a chance there could be more.

Without good reason though, they should not have witheld the product even if they had decided at a local level to refuse the exchange or refund.

Aylesbury_Duck

From OP's account, it doesn't sound like B&Q deliberately detained her paint, I inferred that it went to an office with a staff member, and in the commotion that ensued from OP's distress, she was asked to leave the store and the paint was forgotten about.  I can't see anywhere that says they seized it and deliberately held onto it,  it simply sounds like a mistake.

Bradden

As an ex B&Q manager I can say that it's not unknown for people to walk in .. take a tin off the shelf and then ask to exchange it for another one claiming they'd bought it the other day.

cymruchris

Bradden said:

As an ex B&Q manager I can say that it's not unknown for people to walk in .. take a tin off the shelf and then ask to exchange it for another one claiming they'd bought it the other day.

Absolutely right - but a good store manager/supervisor would generally get a feel for whether someone was genuine or trying it on. Not all stores have CCTV - but many B&Q's at least have an entrance and exit camera whereby they could see whether the person requesting the exchange or refund actually walked in with it though (and that's not to say it wouldn't have been previously stolen - but there are elements to every return that when put together like a jigsaw puzzle that give us the 'probability' of being ripped off or a genuine customer that can't find their receipt)

Undervalued

Bradden said:

As an ex B&Q manager I can say that it's not unknown for people to walk in .. take a tin off the shelf and then ask to exchange it for another one claiming they'd bought it the other day.

Indeed. Even if the OP had a statutory right to a refund (although they didn't in the case) the store is still entitled to seek reasonable proof of purchase for exactly that reason.

For a discretionary refund or exchange (in excesses of statutory rights) they can insist on what they like.