Sports Direct ignoring Consumer Rights.....

Ergates

Exodi said:

Ergates said:

born_again said:

plodder53 said:

Thoughts please...  Bought a pair of Adidas suede trainers for my daughter end of July 25 cost £41 from Sports Direct in store.  Worn only a couple of times on holiday in August which is evident by the lack of any wear on them.  However, the material has pulled apart on the right shoe, by the toe, which is a clear and obvious fault with the shoe. Partner goes to store to return and claim a refund as they are faulty.  Store staff say they can offer an exchange or a credit note, but my partner insists on a refund.

Store assistant calls manager over as this is apparently their process.  He looks at the shoe and states in his opinion, that they aren't faulty and that we have deliberately damaged them.  He refuses to back down and my partner leaves the store, somewhat angry and upset with the way the situation has been handled.

I go with her the following weekend to try and resolve the situation.  This time we meet with a different supervisor who refuses to override the original store managers decision.  We then spend the next 15 minutes discussing with them the Consumer Rights Act and give them a copy, of which they say they are fully aware of, but will not be refunding!!

At the end of the day it is only £41 and not £200, but it is the principle of it and the company blatantly refusing to comply.

I have complained to the Company about the way my partner was dealt with, but this can only be done by online chat now.  Although very sympathetic and apologising for the way we had been treated, they too said they had no power to overrule a store decision, even with photographic proof.

I have drafted a Money Claim via GOV.UK but before I hit send and part with my £35 fee has anyone had the same issues when trying to return faulty goods at Sports Direct recently and have you been successful in getting your money back, or is everyone having to battle this hard with them??

TBH. That does not like it has pulled away, as you can still see material attached to sole. Looks more like it's been cut or caught on something sharp.

It doesn't seem like a cut to me - the edges are too uneven.  Looks more like a tear that has started at the bottom of the upper.   I've seen holes like that appear in shoes - but only after a long time.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think what we can agree on is that it's not clearly and obviously a manufacturing fault, as the OP suggests. The only reason I drew attention to it is peoples views are often distorted by their own bias, but as fellow laypeople, perhaps as evidenced by this thread, it's not clear or obvious.

Not from the picture - may be more (or less) obvious if you can see it in person.  But within the first 6 months of purchase, the default assumption should be that a fault *is* due to a manufacturing defect.  The onus is on Sports Direct to prove otherwise - a store manager giving it a quick look isn't sufficient.  

QrizB

Ergates said:

It doesn't seem like a cut to me - the edges are too uneven.  Looks more like a tear that has started at the bottom of the upper.   I've seen holes like that appear in shoes - but only after a long time.

Agreed. I've seen suede tear like that a couple of times on rigger gloves (which are much more cheaply made than a pair of trainers). I'd guess it was cut too thin and/or there was a flaw in the hide.

Exodi

Ergates said:

Exodi said:

Ergates said:

born_again said:

plodder53 said:

Thoughts please...  Bought a pair of Adidas suede trainers for my daughter end of July 25 cost £41 from Sports Direct in store.  Worn only a couple of times on holiday in August which is evident by the lack of any wear on them.  However, the material has pulled apart on the right shoe, by the toe, which is a clear and obvious fault with the shoe. Partner goes to store to return and claim a refund as they are faulty.  Store staff say they can offer an exchange or a credit note, but my partner insists on a refund.

Store assistant calls manager over as this is apparently their process.  He looks at the shoe and states in his opinion, that they aren't faulty and that we have deliberately damaged them.  He refuses to back down and my partner leaves the store, somewhat angry and upset with the way the situation has been handled.

I go with her the following weekend to try and resolve the situation.  This time we meet with a different supervisor who refuses to override the original store managers decision.  We then spend the next 15 minutes discussing with them the Consumer Rights Act and give them a copy, of which they say they are fully aware of, but will not be refunding!!

At the end of the day it is only £41 and not £200, but it is the principle of it and the company blatantly refusing to comply.

I have complained to the Company about the way my partner was dealt with, but this can only be done by online chat now.  Although very sympathetic and apologising for the way we had been treated, they too said they had no power to overrule a store decision, even with photographic proof.

I have drafted a Money Claim via GOV.UK but before I hit send and part with my £35 fee has anyone had the same issues when trying to return faulty goods at Sports Direct recently and have you been successful in getting your money back, or is everyone having to battle this hard with them??

TBH. That does not like it has pulled away, as you can still see material attached to sole. Looks more like it's been cut or caught on something sharp.

It doesn't seem like a cut to me - the edges are too uneven.  Looks more like a tear that has started at the bottom of the upper.   I've seen holes like that appear in shoes - but only after a long time.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think what we can agree on is that it's not clearly and obviously a manufacturing fault, as the OP suggests. The only reason I drew attention to it is peoples views are often distorted by their own bias, but as fellow laypeople, perhaps as evidenced by this thread, it's not clear or obvious.

Not from the picture - may be more (or less) obvious if you can see it in person.  But within the first 6 months of purchase, the default assumption should be that a fault *is* due to a manufacturing defect.  The onus is on Sports Direct to prove otherwise - a store manager giving it a quick look isn't sufficient.  

I understand the onus is on the manufacturer to prove the fault is not inherent (and then the other way round after 6 months), but presumably I couldn't just set my trainer on fire or saw it in half and then take it into SportsDirect requesting a return as 'the default assumption is the fault is due to a manufacturing defect'. It's now got me thinking, because in my admittedly extreme examples, what is supposed to happen? I guess if they were not willing to issue a return, SportsDirect should be required to commission and provide an independent report concluding that the fault was not inherent as it appears I've set it on fire or sawed it in half?

I guess in reality, if they strongly suspected that I caused the damage, it might be simpler for them to just refuse to accept the return, then if I brought court action against them, they might challenge it there (but really, they're banking on me not bothering). Could that be what's happened here?

Or perhaps, an underpaid manager that doesn't know/care about consumer rights and is making it up as they go along.

screech_78

Oh dear. 

You’re entitled to a repair or a replacement after 30 days. You’re only entitled to a refund if the repair or replacement fails. 

Ergates

Exodi said:

I guess in reality, if they strongly suspected that I caused the damage, it might be simpler for them to just refuse to accept the return, then if I brought court action against them, they might challenge it there (but really, they're banking on me not bothering). Could that be what's happened here?

That's basically what it comes down to - being cynical, even if they don't think the customer is lying they still know that a lot of people (maybe most people) won't bother pursuing matters further over a relatively small sum of money.

The flip side is also true though - companies frequently don't bother to challenge cases that come to court, it's just not worth the effort to fight it.

I guess the general logic (and "balance of probabilities") is that customers who are lying about causing damage aren't going to go as far as court.  Which is probably true most of the time.

Okell

Surely the law is pretty clear on this?

AIUI Sports Direct are legally entitled to one attempt either to replace or to repair the shoes.  The OP - or whoever bought them - is not entitled to a refund unless and until that replacement or repair fails.

In this case SD have fully complied with the Consumer Rights Act by offering an exchange (ie a replacement)

I think the OP would be chucking away the £35 small claims fee if e=she pursued it.

As has already been suggested I'd be back to SD to take up the exchange offer.


NB - of course the OP can only take up the exchange offer if the shoes are "faulty".   I'd have to say the hole or tear in that photo looks possibly more likely to have been caused by damage than a fault?

Ergates

Okell said:

Surely the law is pretty clear on this?

AIUI Sports Direct are legally entitled to one attempt either to replace or to repair the shoes.  The OP - or whoever bought them - is not entitled to a refund unless and until that replacement or repair fails.

In this case SD have fully complied with the Consumer Rights Act by offering an exchange (ie a replacement)

I think the OP would be chucking away the £35 small claims fee if e=she pursued it.

As has already been suggested I'd be back to SD to take up the exchange offer.


NB - of course the OP can only take up the exchange offer if the shoes are "faulty".   I'd have to say the hole or tear in that photo looks possibly more likely to have been caused by damage than a fault?

I think they *were* complying but have no withdrawn their offer.

JJG

Ergates said:

Okell said:

Surely the law is pretty clear on this?

AIUI Sports Direct are legally entitled to one attempt either to replace or to repair the shoes.  The OP - or whoever bought them - is not entitled to a refund unless and until that replacement or repair fails.

In this case SD have fully complied with the Consumer Rights Act by offering an exchange (ie a replacement)

I think the OP would be chucking away the £35 small claims fee if e=she pursued it.

As has already been suggested I'd be back to SD to take up the exchange offer.


NB - of course the OP can only take up the exchange offer if the shoes are "faulty".   I'd have to say the hole or tear in that photo looks possibly more likely to have been caused by damage than a fault?

I think they *were* complying but have no withdrawn their offer.

They did comply. They offered an exchange and the OP refused.

35har1old

Ergates said:

born_again said:

plodder53 said:

Thoughts please...  Bought a pair of Adidas suede trainers for my daughter end of July 25 cost £41 from Sports Direct in store.  Worn only a couple of times on holiday in August which is evident by the lack of any wear on them.  However, the material has pulled apart on the right shoe, by the toe, which is a clear and obvious fault with the shoe. Partner goes to store to return and claim a refund as they are faulty.  Store staff say they can offer an exchange or a credit note, but my partner insists on a refund.

Store assistant calls manager over as this is apparently their process.  He looks at the shoe and states in his opinion, that they aren't faulty and that we have deliberately damaged them.  He refuses to back down and my partner leaves the store, somewhat angry and upset with the way the situation has been handled.

I go with her the following weekend to try and resolve the situation.  This time we meet with a different supervisor who refuses to override the original store managers decision.  We then spend the next 15 minutes discussing with them the Consumer Rights Act and give them a copy, of which they say they are fully aware of, but will not be refunding!!

At the end of the day it is only £41 and not £200, but it is the principle of it and the company blatantly refusing to comply.

I have complained to the Company about the way my partner was dealt with, but this can only be done by online chat now.  Although very sympathetic and apologising for the way we had been treated, they too said they had no power to overrule a store decision, even with photographic proof.

I have drafted a Money Claim via GOV.UK but before I hit send and part with my £35 fee has anyone had the same issues when trying to return faulty goods at Sports Direct recently and have you been successful in getting your money back, or is everyone having to battle this hard with them??

TBH. That does not like it has pulled away, as you can still see material attached to sole. Looks more like it's been cut or caught on something sharp.

It doesn't seem like a cut to me - the edges are too uneven.  Looks more like a tear that has started at the bottom of the upper.   I've seen holes like that appear in shoes - but only after a long time.

plodder53 said:

Thoughts please...  Bought a pair of Adidas suede trainers for my daughter end of July 25 cost £41 from Sports Direct in store.  Worn only a couple of times on holiday in August which is evident by the lack of any wear on them.  However, the material has pulled apart on the right shoe, by the toe, which is a clear and obvious fault with the shoe. Partner goes to store to return and claim a refund as they are faulty.  Store staff say they can offer an exchange or a credit note, but my partner insists on a refund.

Store assistant calls manager over as this is apparently their process.  He looks at the shoe and states in his opinion, that they aren't faulty and that we have deliberately damaged them.  He refuses to back down and my partner leaves the store, somewhat angry and upset with the way the situation has been handled.

I go with her the following weekend to try and resolve the situation.  This time we meet with a different supervisor who refuses to override the original store managers decision.  We then spend the next 15 minutes discussing with them the Consumer Rights Act and give them a copy, of which they say they are fully aware of, but will not be refunding!!

At the end of the day it is only £41 and not £200, but it is the principle of it and the company blatantly refusing to comply.

I have complained to the Company about the way my partner was dealt with, but this can only be done by online chat now.  Although very sympathetic and apologising for the way we had been treated, they too said they had no power to overrule a store decision, even with photographic proof.

I have drafted a Money Claim via GOV.UK but before I hit send and part with my £35 fee has anyone had the same issues when trying to return faulty goods at Sports Direct recently and have you been successful in getting your money back, or is everyone having to battle this hard with them??

Does the wearer have broad feet?

Okell

Ergates said:

Okell said:

Surely the law is pretty clear on this?

AIUI Sports Direct are legally entitled to one attempt either to replace or to repair the shoes.  The OP - or whoever bought them - is not entitled to a refund unless and until that replacement or repair fails.

In this case SD have fully complied with the Consumer Rights Act by offering an exchange (ie a replacement)

I think the OP would be chucking away the £35 small claims fee if e=she pursued it.

As has already been suggested I'd be back to SD to take up the exchange offer.


NB - of course the OP can only take up the exchange offer if the shoes are "faulty".   I'd have to say the hole or tear in that photo looks possibly more likely to have been caused by damage than a fault?

I think they *were* complying but have no withdrawn their offer.

JJG said:

Ergates said:

Okell said:

Surely the law is pretty clear on this?

AIUI Sports Direct are legally entitled to one attempt either to replace or to repair the shoes.  The OP - or whoever bought them - is not entitled to a refund unless and until that replacement or repair fails.

In this case SD have fully complied with the Consumer Rights Act by offering an exchange (ie a replacement)

I think the OP would be chucking away the £35 small claims fee if e=she pursued it.

As has already been suggested I'd be back to SD to take up the exchange offer.


NB - of course the OP can only take up the exchange offer if the shoes are "faulty".   I'd have to say the hole or tear in that photo looks possibly more likely to have been caused by damage than a fault?

I think they *were* complying but have no withdrawn their offer.

They did comply. They offered an exchange and the OP refused.

Yeah, but if - for the sake of argument - the shoes really are faulty and it isn't accidental damage, is the trader entitled to withdraw their offer to replace?

If the shoes really are faulty, then under the CRA the consumer is entitled to a replacement or a repair - it doesn't say anything about the consumer being able to waive that right.