Homebase - Refused Refund as in Administration

HBRA154

Also, a point on signage, the ones I've seen are pretty lackluster, sheets of white A4 with maybe 20 point black text, but if they are by the tills you are likely expected to have read them even if this isn't particularly realistic

Okell

I think the problem is that consumers have become so used to almost all retailers offering some kind of change of mind returns policy for instore purchases that they think it's a statutory consumer right.

Alderbank

Okell said:

I think the problem is that consumers have become so used to almost all retailers offering some kind of change of mind returns policy for instore purchases that they think it's a statutory consumer right.

If it's stated or displayed at the point of sale it is a contractual right.

HomeBase's current T&Cs say that even if you bought something in store 3 weeks ago under the then current terms of sale and now wish to return it for any reason, you can't because they say so.

In their words:

Any unwanted / unused items purchased from Homebase stores (both pre and post appointment of Joint Administrators on 13/11/2024) are sold as seen and are not eligible for refund or exchange.

I don't believe that is how the law of contracts works but I am willing to be corrected.

born_again

Homebase are no longer trading. So any contract with them is null & void.

The point administrator's are still shifting current stock to be able to pay creditors.

Administrator's could simply have locked doors, As we all know, you can't return something to a retailer that has shut down. 

This is the norm with all the high street retailers that have gone to the wall over the last few years.

DullGreyGuy

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

I think the problem is that consumers have become so used to almost all retailers offering some kind of change of mind returns policy for instore purchases that they think it's a statutory consumer right.

If it's stated or displayed at the point of sale it is a contractual right.

HomeBase's current T&Cs say that even if you bought something in store 3 weeks ago under the then current terms of sale and now wish to return it for any reason, you can't because they say so.

In their words:

Any unwanted / unused items purchased from Homebase stores (both pre and post appointment of Joint Administrators on 13/11/2024) are sold as seen and are not eligible for refund or exchange.

I don't believe that is how the law of contracts works but I am willing to be corrected.

First of all you'd need to check what the actual terms were, a fair few I've looked at in the past are actually discretionary and so the administrators are in their rights to exercise their discretion not to pay. 

Ultimately the fact that administrators have been called in means there is no enough (liquid) funds to pay everyone what they are due. Administrators have a legal duty to maximise the value of the business and repay creditors in their rank order. 

Yes, that may mean they breach the contract but ultimately the OP will be considered a 5th rank creditor below those with fixed charges, the administrators themselves, HMRC for PAYE, VAT etc, those with floating charges. Only ones below unsecured creditors are the shareholders. 

They could litigate for the breach of contract but if they get a few pence per pound of debt owed they'd be doing well. 

SH88

DullGreyGuy said:

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. 

Seems some are unable to read the entire thread before responding, I'd like to clarify a few things.

No I didn't buy from the Website, but it's the same item, with the same measures of 64cm on the label/store display.

Obviously I do sympathise with the Store Colleague losing their jobs. But my personal circumstances aren't a factor, so why should theirs be when trying to enforce Consumer Law?

I may be wrong, but as I tried to explain earlier, when I bought a 64cm Skirt, I expected it to fit Christmas Tree Legs < 64cm.

The same way if I bought a 64in TV, I expect the TV screen to be 64in regardless of how much bezel or outer shell the TV has.

To clarify, this is not an unwanted item... it's an item that I believe to not be as described...

My Tree legs are ~60cm. The inner space available on the widest part of the wooden 64cm Skirt is ~58cm.

So, maybe, it was my mistake, assuming a 64cm Skirt would fit my 60cm Christmas Tree leg, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the advertising is misleading here, and an argument could be made that it's not as described, therefore in my opinion falls under the Consumer Act, regardless to whether or not Homebase is in Administration.
If I'm wrong I accept that.

I wasn't given a chance to explain this in store because of how aggressive the Store Colleague was.

He could have politely told me why the Skirt not being flush, or the ambiguous dimensions didn't fall under Consumer Act.

Again, I really feel for them and their position which is why I remained polite, but as harsh as it sounds, it's not a factor for whether or not I'm entitled to a refund, and the behaviour of the employee is completely unwarranted.
I've supported Homebase for many years. I didn't make them go into administration.

I hope if anyone else chooses to reply, they would read the entire thing first.
Maybe share an opinion on the dimensions and whether I was wrong to assume 60cm Tree Legs would fit in a Tree Skirt of 64cm.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify. 

Grumpy_chap

Alderbank said:

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.

Alderbank said

If it's stated or displayed at the point of sale it is a contractual right.

HomeBase's current T&Cs say that even if you bought something in store 3 weeks ago under the then current terms of sale and now wish to return it for any reason, you can't because they say so.

In their words:

Any unwanted / unused items purchased from Homebase stores (both pre and post appointment of Joint Administrators on 13/11/2024) are sold as seen and are not eligible for refund or exchange.

I don't believe that is how the law of contracts works but I am willing to be corrected.

IANAL but AIUI, it is not Homebase that are changing the Ts&Cs retroactively. 
AIUI, in legal terms, when a business "Homebase Ltd" goes into Administration that businesses ceases to exist as a trading entity. 
The Administrators have one single function which is to recover the maximum number of pence in the pound for the creditors, so they create a new business "Homebase in Administration Ltd" to which they transfer all the assets but none of the liabilities of the original company "Homebase Ltd".
If you take an item purchased prior to Administration to a store now, your rights (whether Consumer Rights or Contract Rights) are to return that item to the original company "Homebase Limited" but the original company are no longer at the address (store) to which you are attempting to return the goods. 
The new business "Homebase in Administration Limited" has no reason to accept the returned goods and no value against which to refund you.  Indeed, the new business is likely selling the stock of the original item at a discounted price just to get rid.

Often, the Administrators take a little bit of a view on some factors - for example allowing gift cards to be redeemed for a short while.  This is apparently in conflict with the need to obtain the maximum number of pence in the pound for creditors, but will be a decision taken in the round to avoid issues such as a high number of individuals trying to make claims (very expensive to administer) and / or individuals turning up at stores and threatening (or using) violence against staff.  It is usually cheaper, in the round, to shift stock quickly via stores than alternative options.  The shift via store option would not work if staff were at risk of violence.

In summary, I understand that the rights against "Homebase Limited" all ceased and will not have transferred to "Homebase in Administration Limited".

I am uncertain as to how chargeback and / or S75 rights would apply.  Banks may well refuse chargeback requests if the business accounts do not allow funds to be recovered and S75 would require a breach to be demonstrated.


Please note, I have used the business names "Homebase Limited" and "Homebase in Administration Limited" as proxy names - I do not know the legal form of either the original Homebase company or the company operating in Administration.

DullGreyGuy

SH88 said:

The same way if I bought a 64in TV, I expect the TV screen to be 64in regardless of how much bezel or outer shell the TV has.

And this is the sort of problem people have, they cut a 64" gap into the media wall for the shiny new TV they are going to buy and dont think that the actual TV itself is bigger so when it comes to trying to fit it won't go into the recess. So, unless it says "to fit tree legs up to 64cm" there is always going to be the potential for confusion depending on the exact nature of the item.

Guessing its this thing - https://www.homebase.co.uk/natural-willow-christmas-tree-skirt-64cm/12838564.html 

If so, the website for a start is odd as it gives the dimensions as: (H)32 x(W)64 x (Dia)38cm... for a circular item you'd expect the W and "D" to be the same but they say it only has a 38cm diameter, also doesn't help the 4 different products in the photo but you can only vary the colour not the finer staves/higher frustum also shown. 

What is the actual diameter of the outside? Doesn't look like it's going to be 3cm a side but for completeness. 

Assuming it's notably below 64cm then yes it would be argued as "not as described". It may mean they consider it now but ultimately they are still in administration and therefore likely insolvent and even under the CRA you are still an unsecured creditor so 5th rank when it comes to dividing up what cash is left

SH88

DullGreyGuy said:

SH88 said:

The same way if I bought a 64in TV, I expect the TV screen to be 64in regardless of how much bezel or outer shell the TV has.

And this is the sort of problem people have, they cut a 64" gap into the media wall for the shiny new TV they are going to buy and dont think that the actual TV itself is bigger so when it comes to trying to fit it won't go into the recess. So, unless it says "to fit tree legs up to 64cm" there is always going to be the potential for confusion depending on the exact nature of the item.

Guessing its this thing - https://www.homebase.co.uk/natural-willow-christmas-tree-skirt-64cm/12838564.html 

If so, the website for a start is odd as it gives the dimensions as: (H)32 x(W)64 x (Dia)38cm... for a circular item you'd expect the W and "D" to be the same but they say it only has a 38cm diameter, also doesn't help the 4 different products in the photo but you can only vary the colour not the finer staves/higher frustum also shown. 

What is the actual diameter of the outside? Doesn't look like it's going to be 3cm a side but for completeness. 

Assuming it's notably below 64cm then yes it would be argued as "not as described". It may mean they consider it now but ultimately they are still in administration and therefore likely insolvent and even under the CRA you are still an unsecured creditor so 5th rank when it comes to dividing up what cash is left

That's the one, but the dark version.

The outer diameter of the bottom of the Skirt is 64cm (including the wood)... however the width of the wicker/woven wood is ~3cm give or take a few mm.

Therefore you immediately lose around 6cm of space from the diameter.

My Tree Legs are 60cm at the furthest points.

Because of this they don't fit, as 64cm - 2x3cm = 58cm.

I led with it being wonky because at the time I thought that would be easier to explain as faulty, but the misleading (in my opinion) dimensions is likely more of an issue.

At the time I couldn't understand listing a Tree Skirt as 64cm Skirt, if it doesn't fit 64cm Legs. That's my mistake.

The more I speak about this, the more trivial and silly it feels.

And I probably should have just measured, rather than assuming the listed size wasn't the available size for legs.
Something I'll check for things now in the future.

I'm probably going to leave this here now. 
Thank you everyone for your feedback.

Once again, I'm sorry Store Colleagues are in this situation.
My experience here, and search for clarity is more about understanding why I was refused a refund, and understanding the Consumer Law, more than having an issue with Homebase itself. And I hope anyone affected by Homebase closing find the right path.

Okell

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

I think the problem is that consumers have become so used to almost all retailers offering some kind of change of mind returns policy for instore purchases that they think it's a statutory consumer right.

If it's stated or displayed at the point of sale it is a contractual right...

I'm aware of that but there seems to be some dispute here as to whether the returns policy is simply a policy or whether it's been incorporated into the contract(?).  There seems to be a difference of opinion whether the "policy" is displayed prior to a contract being formed or whether it's just on the back of the receipt(?).

Even if it does form part of the contract there is also a difference of opinion as to whether it would be enforceable against HB in administration.

My point still stands that many consumers wrongly think they have a legal right to return instore purchases.  (Although if I were the OP here I'd be pushing the store that the skirt is not as described)