Homebase - Refused Refund as in Administration

elsien

Okell said:

Why can't the OP take it back if it's not as described?

Assuming the OP is telling the truth - and that I've understood him correctly - he's saying the item is described as 64cm but it's actually only 58cm.  I'd certainly want an exchange or refund in those circumstances.

I'm wondering if the OP actually made this point rather than banging on and possibly annoying staff...

It depends on where the not as described came from. 

So, it’s a different size to the information on the box vs The box is correct, but the OP went off information on the shelf.

And it’s not okay for shop staff to be rude, if that is what happened, they have just found out they may well be losing their jobs. A little bit of compassion wouldn’t go amiss. 

Okell

SH88 said:

Okell said:

Why can't the OP take it back if it's not as described?

Assuming the OP is telling the truth - and that I've understood him correctly - he's saying the item is described as 64cm but it's actually only 58cm.  I'd certainly want an exchange or refund in those circumstances.

I'm wondering if the OP actually made this point rather than banging on and possibly annoying staff...

I believe most of these responses didn't see my details about the product dimensions being wrong, as I forgot to include it initially when drafting my message - totally my fault.

That said I am telling the truth and have photos which I can upload against a tape measure...

If you forgot to include that crucial bit of information when you started this thread, did you actually tell HB staff that you weren't returning it as a change of mind, but because it wasn't as described?

Whether or not HB are in administration, they still have to comply with consumer law and part of that is that goods must be "as described".

Quote s11(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to them.

You can't just get a refund as HB are first entitled to offer you a replacement that is as described.  But if they can't do that you are then entitled to a refund.

swingaloo

If its the wicker one they sell for £30 then the measurements are correct. We have bought the same one. Its 64cms on the box, but, the 64cms are at the widest part of the outside edge and as its quite a thick woven skirt if you measure it on the inside edge to edge it is 58cms.

As it is cone shaped then its only at the bottom outside edge that you get the full width of 64cms. 

Its not mis-advertised its just that the measurements given are done at the highest and widest part which is pretty standard with anything you buy.

SH88

elsien said:

It depends on where the not as described came from. 

So, it’s a different size to the information on the box vs The box is correct, but the OP went off information on the shelf.

And it’s not okay for shop staff to be rude, if that is what happened, they have just found out they may well be losing their jobs. A little bit of compassion wouldn’t go amiss. 

I was compassionate and do sympathise with their situation. I was completely polite. But compassion should cost me money.

swingaloo said:

If its the wicker one they sell for £30 then the measurements are correct. We have bought the same one. Its 64cms on the box, but, the 64cms are at the widest part of the outside edge and as its quite a thick woven skirt if you measure it on the inside edge to edge it is 58cms.

As it is cone shaped then its only at the bottom outside edge that you get the full width of 64cms. 

Its not mis-advertised its just that the measurements given are done at the highest and widest part which is pretty standard with anything you buy.

I guess I wrongly assumed the size advertised would equate to the space available for Christmas Tree legs, given that’s the size I measured before heading to store.

Is this not normal practice?

The same way you would buy Shoes, to fit feet, irrespective of the outside thickness or design…

Either way, it’s becoming clearer with all the responses here it must be my fault and I’ll have to let it go.

(Removed by Forum Team)

Thanks for posting.

PHK

With regards to rights. It is correct that in law you have no right to return an item to a store unless it is faulty or significantly not as described. 

It's been suggested earlier in the thread that you might have a contractual right to return based on the returns policy Homebase had. I personally don't think you would as Homebase, as was, does not exist anymore and even if it did generally speaking  policies are not seen as terms of business. 

Lets assume for one moment that you've managed to prove that the returns policy formed part of the contract (rather than "just" a policy the store had). Then because Homebase have gone into administration,and putting aside the rules and laws around administration (i.e. what administrators can and cannot do when running a company),  that would make you an unsecured creditor. 

So, annoying as it is to you the pragmatic and practical course of action would be to sell the unwanted item. 

Ergates

SH88 said:

I guess I wrongly assumed the size advertised would equate to the space available for Christmas Tree legs, given that’s the size I measured before heading to store.

Is this not normal practice?

The same way you would buy Shoes, to fit feet, irrespective of the outside thickness or design…

Either way, it’s becoming clearer with all the responses here it must be my fault and I’ll have to let it go.

The offer stands if everyone needs a Tree Skirt that fits <58cm Christmas Tree legs, let me know. Will ship for free.

Thanks for posting.

I don't think there is a normal practice for measuring decorations that go around the base of a Christmas tree.

However, most things are advertised using the "best" sounding dimensions - which generally means making things sound as large as possible.   i.e. things that are advertised using a length will use the maximum length the item has.

DullGreyGuy

SH88 said:

user1977 said:

Administration or not, you don’t have a statutory right to return items bought in store if it’s just a change of mind.

This is false. The receipt states Returns are accepted within 30 days with proof of purchase.

Not to mention, the reason it doesn't fit because the advertised measurements are incorrect.

I would want it if it was the size it stated, even if slightly wonky.

That would be a (former) company policy not a statutory right. 

SH88 said:

Furthermore, the item is mislabelled as 64cm Skirt, when it's only 58cm Skirt. Something that is verifiable on the website, which is why is doesn't fit my tree.

You didnt buy from their website so what it says there isn't that relevant, could be a different product. 

What does it actually say on the item you bought about its size?

How are you actually measuring it? Are you measuring the just actual fabric or from the center point which includes the void which the tree trunk goes in?

SH88 said:

The Store Colleague got instantly aggressive towards me in front of my 5 year old Son, stating there are multiple signs up highlighting this.

<snip>

Leading up to Christmas, I just can't really afford to throw away £30 because I'm supposed to be psychic.

You are worried about losing £30 before Xmas, the person you are talking to is likely to lose their job before Xmas. You are probably the 50th customer that day they've had to deal with worried about a modest spend rather than being unemployed at Xmas. 

HBRA154

    This thread seems pretty much resolved, but I'd like to add some basic info that applies generally given this thread is the top google result for "Homebase refused refund". I work at a Homebase branch, and we were only informed of the new returns policy toward the end of the day just before it was to be implemented. There has been a lot of confusion even among staff about the exact details, which have not been especially well communicated from the administrators.

    The main point with items bought in-store is that we cannot accept returns for any reason other than that which are described in the consumer rights act, and that this applies retroactively to all purchases made in store before the administration began (even though we cant physically sneak into peoples homes and clip off the bit of the receipt stating otherwise, receipts have now been amended to no longer include the promise). This has caused a lot of direct negative interactions between shop floor staff and customers, and I do not doubt that this was not the first time the staff member had been told about a situation like this that day. She was also very likely staring down the barrel of having to get a new job in the next few weeks given statutory redundancy pay is utterly abysmal unless you're over 41 and have been working at a company continuously for several decades.

    It's important to note that there are different rules regarding online and "click and collect" store reservation purchases. In the click and collect case, the new return policy states that you are entitled to an exchange within 30 days of purchase *at the same store which you purchased the item* (this also applies to all faulty items that are purchased from a store), provided the item is unused, in its original packaging, and in resalable condition. Different stores seem to have different levels of tolerance around this, usually proportionate to how nice you are about things. Online delivery orders are subject to even fewer requirements, and you can exchange and refund any unwanted items within 30 days, provided they're unused in resalable condition.

    Overall, I'd recommend treating almost all purchases from Homebase as non-refundable, given the company is going to be completely gone in a few months. However, there are administration sales already ramping up, so you might be able to get very good prices in exchange for that. And if you do have an unwanted item you bought before it fell into administration, or an item with a similar "issue" to the original poster, I would recommend you attempt to sell it yourself instead of berating employees about it first.

Alderbank

HBRA154 said:

    This thread seems pretty much resolved, but I'd like to add some basic info that applies generally given this thread is the top google result for "Homebase refused refund". I work at a Homebase branch, and we were only informed of the new returns policy toward the end of the day just before it was to be implemented. There has been a lot of confusion even among staff about the exact details, which have not been especially well communicated from the administrators.

    The main point with items bought in-store is that we cannot accept returns for any reason other than that which are described in the consumer rights act, and that this applies retroactively to all purchases made in store before the administration began (even though we cant physically sneak into peoples homes and clip off the bit of the receipt stating otherwise, receipts have now been amended to no longer include the promise). This has caused a lot of direct negative interactions between shop floor staff and customers, and I do not doubt that this was not the first time the staff member had been told about a situation like this that day. She was also very likely staring down the barrel of having to get a new job in the next few weeks given statutory redundancy pay is utterly abysmal unless you're over 41 and have been working at a company continuously for several decades.

    It's important to note that there are different rules regarding online and "click and collect" store reservation purchases. In the click and collect case, the new return policy states that you are entitled to an exchange within 30 days of purchase *at the same store which you purchased the item* (this also applies to all faulty items that are purchased from a store), provided the item is unused, in its original packaging, and in resalable condition. Different stores seem to have different levels of tolerance around this, usually proportionate to how nice you are about things. Online delivery orders are subject to even fewer requirements, and you can exchange and refund any unwanted items within 30 days, provided they're unused in resalable condition.

    Overall, I'd recommend treating almost all purchases from Homebase as non-refundable, given the company is going to be completely gone in a few months. However, there are administration sales already ramping up, so you might be able to get very good prices in exchange for that. And if you do have an unwanted item you bought before it fell into administration, or an item with a similar "issue" to the original poster, I would recommend you attempt to sell it yourself instead of berating employees about it first.

Welcome to the forum and thank you for this useful post. It is always useful to hear the other side of a case.

I have great sympathy for you and your colleagues, threat of redundancy is hard and trading conditions in your store are bound to be fraught on all sides.

However this section is about the legal rights of consumers.

I know you didn't make these rules and it is useful for us to know how the administrators are thinking. However these new rules are simply wrong in law.

You say that HomeBase has unilaterally made changes to T&Cs which apply retroactively to all existing contracts. That is unlawful. A basic requirement of common law of contract is that neither side can unilaterally make changes once the contract has been confirmed. In terms of consumer law, any contract term which seeks to take away a consumer's rights is considered unfair and cannot be enforced.

The new rules which say that faulty items will only be replaced provided the item is unused, in its original packaging, and in resalable condition are also wrong in law.
That is in direct breach of section 19 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'Consumer's rights to enforce terms about goods' which explains that use is permitted.

I agree that in practice consumers will not be able to take legal action in the courts for breach of contract because the entity they have bought from will have disappeared long before it could come to court. However, shoppers who buy using a credit or debit card do have other options and can raise a dispute with the card providers, with a very high likelihood that if their case is sound that they will be fully refunded. They don't just have to write off faulty purchases from HomeBase as non-refundable.

HBRA154

Alderbank said:

HBRA154 said:

    This thread seems pretty much resolved, but I'd like to add some basic info that applies generally given this thread is the top google result for "Homebase refused refund". I work at a Homebase branch, and we were only informed of the new returns policy toward the end of the day just before it was to be implemented. There has been a lot of confusion even among staff about the exact details, which have not been especially well communicated from the administrators.

    The main point with items bought in-store is that we cannot accept returns for any reason other than that which are described in the consumer rights act, and that this applies retroactively to all purchases made in store before the administration began (even though we cant physically sneak into peoples homes and clip off the bit of the receipt stating otherwise, receipts have now been amended to no longer include the promise). This has caused a lot of direct negative interactions between shop floor staff and customers, and I do not doubt that this was not the first time the staff member had been told about a situation like this that day. She was also very likely staring down the barrel of having to get a new job in the next few weeks given statutory redundancy pay is utterly abysmal unless you're over 41 and have been working at a company continuously for several decades.

    It's important to note that there are different rules regarding online and "click and collect" store reservation purchases. In the click and collect case, the new return policy states that you are entitled to an exchange within 30 days of purchase *at the same store which you purchased the item* (this also applies to all faulty items that are purchased from a store), provided the item is unused, in its original packaging, and in resalable condition. Different stores seem to have different levels of tolerance around this, usually proportionate to how nice you are about things. Online delivery orders are subject to even fewer requirements, and you can exchange and refund any unwanted items within 30 days, provided they're unused in resalable condition.

    Overall, I'd recommend treating almost all purchases from Homebase as non-refundable, given the company is going to be completely gone in a few months. However, there are administration sales already ramping up, so you might be able to get very good prices in exchange for that. And if you do have an unwanted item you bought before it fell into administration, or an item with a similar "issue" to the original poster, I would recommend you attempt to sell it yourself instead of berating employees about it first.

Welcome to the forum and thank you for this useful post. It is always useful to hear the other side of a case.

I have great sympathy for you and your colleagues, threat of redundancy is hard and trading conditions in your store are bound to be fraught on all sides.

However this section is about the legal rights of consumers.

I know you didn't make these rules and it is useful for us to know how the administrators are thinking. However these new rules are simply wrong in law.

You say that HomeBase has unilaterally made changes to T&Cs which apply retroactively to all existing contracts. That is unlawful. A basic requirement of common law of contract is that neither side can unilaterally make changes once the contract has been confirmed. In terms of consumer law, any contract term which seeks to take away a consumer's rights is considered unfair and cannot be enforced.

The new rules which say that faulty items will only be replaced provided the item is unused, in its original packaging, and in resalable condition are also wrong in law.
That is in direct breach of section 19 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'Consumer's rights to enforce terms about goods' which explains that use is permitted.

I agree that in practice consumers will not be able to take legal action in the courts for breach of contract because the entity they have bought from will have disappeared long before it could come to court. However, shoppers who buy using a credit or debit card do have other options and can raise a dispute with the card providers, with a very high likelihood that if their case is sound that they will be fully refunded. They don't just have to write off faulty purchases from HomeBase as non-refundable.

Just to clarify, the "unused in original packaging" obviously does not and cannot apply to faulty items, as these have to be used to be determined to be faulty. I have never seen that demand be made of a faulty item in the time i have worked there, so anyone with a faulty item should feel safe to return it to the branch they bought it. However, i cannot attest to if the retroactive nullification of the returns policy is lawful or not, but it is what stores have been told directly to enforce and any legal issues would have to be raised to the administrators (a company called Teneo, pretty large and with a fairly spotty track record) instead of any employee of Homebase. Credit and debit card based solutions may also be a good idea if you get stuck on this, as the companies who run those have a hell of a lot more leverage than practically anyone else you could get hold of.