Wrong item sent

FrugaiMacDugal

Did he rip tags off (plastic) or were they stringy (loop through) which are easy to reattach?

teddybear581

Okell said:

teddybear581 said:

sorry Okell . off course I want help and advice. it was Lovell Sports 

No worries.

Everyone here (including myself!) slags off Mike Ashley's companies but I've never had a problem myself.

You go back to them and explain very clearly that you are not looking to return the shirt under their own returns policy (whatever that is) but you are exercising your legal rights under s11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods must be as described.

Explain to them that you ordered shirt xxx but they supplied zzz, therefore the shirt is not as described.  As such you are entitled to replacement correct shirt xxx at no additional cost to yourself.  (ie Lovell Sports are responsible for the return costs so you want a prepaid returns label to return shirt zzz to them).

If they can't supply a replacement, you want a full refund.

That's the position you must take with them.  Quote the law to them as per the above link and confirm what you ordered as opposed to what you received.

The tags are irrelevent to all of this because they sent the wrong shirt in the frist place.

How much did the shirt cost and how did you pay?

TY Okell , It  cost £49.99 and I paid by paypal along with another  top I ordered  at the  same time. 

Okell

teddybear581 said:

Okell said:

teddybear581 said:

sorry Okell . off course I want help and advice. it was Lovell Sports 

No worries.

Everyone here (including myself!) slags off Mike Ashley's companies but I've never had a problem myself.

You go back to them and explain very clearly that you are not looking to return the shirt under their own returns policy (whatever that is) but you are exercising your legal rights under s11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods must be as described.

Explain to them that you ordered shirt xxx but they supplied zzz, therefore the shirt is not as described.  As such you are entitled to replacement correct shirt xxx at no additional cost to yourself.  (ie Lovell Sports are responsible for the return costs so you want a prepaid returns label to return shirt zzz to them).

If they can't supply a replacement, you want a full refund.

That's the position you must take with them.  Quote the law to them as per the above link and confirm what you ordered as opposed to what you received.

The tags are irrelevent to all of this because they sent the wrong shirt in the frist place.

How much did the shirt cost and how did you pay?

TY Okell , It  cost £49.99 and I paid by paypal along with another  top I ordered  at the  same time. 

OK.

Go back and tell them that you ordered shirt xxx but they sent you shirt yyy.

Explain to them - you can quote the law to them - that under s11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods must be "as described".

You ordered xxx but they sent yyy, so the goods are NOT as described, and they are breaching your statutory consumer rights under the above legislation.

Tell them you want yyy to be exchanged for what you actually ordered - xxx - and that they need to pay the return costs.  If xxx is no longer available you want a full refund.

Despite several posters asking "do you still have the tags", the tags are irrelevant.  They sent you the wrong shirt.  Under the law you are entitled to exactly what you ordered at no extra cost to you.  The tags are a complete red herring.

You may need to assertively - but not rudely - emphasise to them that you are not trying to use their own returns policy.  What you are doing is exercising your legal rights under the above legislation to get what you ordered and paid for - not something else - and so it's irrelevant whather the tags are still attached (or even if they still exist) or not.

They sent the wrong shirt.  It's their problem, not yours

If the first line of customer services try to fob you off with some bo77ocks about the tags, tell them you want to speak to a supervisor.

You didn't pay by credit card and the shirt was < £100 so no s75 claim.  I don't know what other protection you may have with paypal (chargeback?) but others will know.


[Edit:  if others still think the OP is at fault because the tags have been chucked out, it's not her problem.  The shirt was a gift for her husband and the OP reasonably assumed the trader would send the correct shirt that she had ordered - not something else.  She didn't check the shirt before giving it to her husband - why should she? - and he didn't know that she had actually ordered something different from what he got.  The tags were binned in good faith

It's the trader's prblem, not the OP's or her husband's]

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

You ordered xxx but they sent yyy, so the goods are NOT as described, and they are breaching your statutory consumer rights under the above legislation.

Tell them you want yyy to be exchanged for what you actually ordered - xxx - and that they need to pay the return costs.  If xxx is no longer available you want a full refund.

Despite several posters asking "do you still have the tags", the tags are irrelevant.  They sent you the wrong shirt.  Under the law you are entitled to exactly what you ordered at no extra cost to you.  The tags are a complete red herring.

You may need to assertively - but not rudely - emphasise to them that you are not trying to use their own returns policy.  What you are doing is exercising your legal rights under the above legislation to get what you ordered and paid for - not something else - and so it's irrelevant whather the tags are still attached (or even if they still exist) or not.

They sent the wrong shirt.  It's their problem, not yours

In the case of "goods not as described", how long does that really apply?

There have been prior threads where it has been suggested it applies forever and matters not what the use made has been in the meantime.

I actually had something similar happen to me two Christmas's back.  I wanted a Nike backpack which had two versions - "standard" and "youth".  Sports Direct were listing the standard backpack at £5 less than everywhere else.  My wife purchased me the backpack from SD and it became my Christmas present that year.  The reason for the lower price became apparent when I unwrapped it and found the youth version had been supplied, which is just cheaper.  I decided to just keep and use the backpack as received - the price paid for the backpack received was still the fair "correct" price but not as per the description.  I have now used the backpack 2 or 3 times a week for a couple of years.  After what time would the "not as described" right to return expire?

Alderbank

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

You ordered xxx but they sent yyy, so the goods are NOT as described, and they are breaching your statutory consumer rights under the above legislation.

Tell them you want yyy to be exchanged for what you actually ordered - xxx - and that they need to pay the return costs.  If xxx is no longer available you want a full refund.

Despite several posters asking "do you still have the tags", the tags are irrelevant.  They sent you the wrong shirt.  Under the law you are entitled to exactly what you ordered at no extra cost to you.  The tags are a complete red herring.

You may need to assertively - but not rudely - emphasise to them that you are not trying to use their own returns policy.  What you are doing is exercising your legal rights under the above legislation to get what you ordered and paid for - not something else - and so it's irrelevant whather the tags are still attached (or even if they still exist) or not.

They sent the wrong shirt.  It's their problem, not yours

In the case of "goods not as described", how long does that really apply?

There have been prior threads where it has been suggested it applies forever and matters not what the use made has been in the meantime.

I actually had something similar happen to me two Christmas's back.  I wanted a Nike backpack which had two versions - "standard" and "youth".  Sports Direct were listing the standard backpack at £5 less than everywhere else.  My wife purchased me the backpack from SD and it became my Christmas present that year.  The reason for the lower price became apparent when I unwrapped it and found the youth version had been supplied, which is just cheaper.  I decided to just keep and use the backpack as received - the price paid for the backpack received was still the fair "correct" price but not as per the description.  I have now used the backpack 2 or 3 times a week for a couple of years.  After what time would the "not as described" right to return expire?

The Consumer Rights Act puts no limit on that right. The right exists as long as you own it.

Once the seller agrees they breached the contract by supplying the wrong goods they must repair the breach either by sending you the correct shirt if still available or refunding the buyer.

They can make a deduction of up to 100% of the refund depending on the amount of use you have had. The CRA gives no detail about this; it is agreed by negotiation between your wife (the consumer) and the trader. Many retailers work on a rule of thumb of about 20% a year for use.

Since the trader was Sports Direct, your wife should be ready for some tough negotiating.

Ergates

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

You ordered xxx but they sent yyy, so the goods are NOT as described, and they are breaching your statutory consumer rights under the above legislation.

Tell them you want yyy to be exchanged for what you actually ordered - xxx - and that they need to pay the return costs.  If xxx is no longer available you want a full refund.

Despite several posters asking "do you still have the tags", the tags are irrelevant.  They sent you the wrong shirt.  Under the law you are entitled to exactly what you ordered at no extra cost to you.  The tags are a complete red herring.

You may need to assertively - but not rudely - emphasise to them that you are not trying to use their own returns policy.  What you are doing is exercising your legal rights under the above legislation to get what you ordered and paid for - not something else - and so it's irrelevant whather the tags are still attached (or even if they still exist) or not.

They sent the wrong shirt.  It's their problem, not yours

In the case of "goods not as described", how long does that really apply?

There have been prior threads where it has been suggested it applies forever and matters not what the use made has been in the meantime.

I actually had something similar happen to me two Christmas's back.  I wanted a Nike backpack which had two versions - "standard" and "youth".  Sports Direct were listing the standard backpack at £5 less than everywhere else.  My wife purchased me the backpack from SD and it became my Christmas present that year.  The reason for the lower price became apparent when I unwrapped it and found the youth version had been supplied, which is just cheaper.  I decided to just keep and use the backpack as received - the price paid for the backpack received was still the fair "correct" price but not as per the description.  I have now used the backpack 2 or 3 times a week for a couple of years.  After what time would the "not as described" right to return expire?

"It depends"

Under the circumstances you describe - that timeframe in which you could expect some kind of remediation has long passed.

Grumpy_chap

Thanks @Alderbank and @Ergates

We won't be trying to swap out the backpacks (so that saves my wife the hassle).  FWIW, I am minded to agree that the interpretation given by Ergates. i.e. long passed, is the correct one.  I was merely asking as there are in various commentaries in the forum, people who express the view that the "not as described" has no time limit.  I have even seen commentators that do not allow for the deduction for beneficial use.

Bringing this back to the OP's t-shirt, if the tags can be removed and that is OK, how much could be done before "not as described" becomes impracticable?  Worn once?  Laundered once?  Worn and laundered 10 times?

user1977

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

You ordered xxx but they sent yyy, so the goods are NOT as described, and they are breaching your statutory consumer rights under the above legislation.

Tell them you want yyy to be exchanged for what you actually ordered - xxx - and that they need to pay the return costs.  If xxx is no longer available you want a full refund.

Despite several posters asking "do you still have the tags", the tags are irrelevant.  They sent you the wrong shirt.  Under the law you are entitled to exactly what you ordered at no extra cost to you.  The tags are a complete red herring.

You may need to assertively - but not rudely - emphasise to them that you are not trying to use their own returns policy.  What you are doing is exercising your legal rights under the above legislation to get what you ordered and paid for - not something else - and so it's irrelevant whather the tags are still attached (or even if they still exist) or not.

They sent the wrong shirt.  It's their problem, not yours

After what time would the "not as described" right to return expire?

In theory until the normal period of prescription expires, but if you’re returning the “wrong” item in well-used condition I doubt you’ve got any hope.

Ergates

Grumpy_chap said:

Thanks @Alderbank and @Ergates

We won't be trying to swap out the backpacks (so that saves my wife the hassle).  FWIW, I am minded to agree that the interpretation given by Ergates. i.e. long passed, is the correct one.  I was merely asking as there are in various commentaries in the forum, people who express the view that the "not as described" has no time limit.  I have even seen commentators that do not allow for the deduction for beneficial use.

Bringing this back to the OP's t-shirt, if the tags can be removed and that is OK, how much could be done before "not as described" becomes impracticable?  Worn once?  Laundered once?  Worn and laundered 10 times?

Theoretically, there are circumstances in which the "no time limit" could come into effect.  E.g. circumstances in which the differences were impossible to detect without opening/using the item (whatever "using" means for the item in question), and in which it would be quite reasonable to buy an item and then not use it for several years.

But... I'm struggling to think of many realistic ones.  

Maybe... tins of long life emergency rations, that had the wrong label on  (so "beef stew" was "chicken curry"). ?

I'm sure someone can think of a better example.

Ergates

Grumpy_chap said:

Bringing this back to the OP's t-shirt, if the tags can be removed and that is OK, how much could be done before "not as described" becomes impracticable?  Worn once?  Laundered once?  Worn and laundered 10 times?

I'd say until the point at which you've "done stuff" to it that makes it easily distinguishable from an unused item, where that "stuff" wasn't an essential part of identifying the nature of the item.

For an item of clothing, that could just be wearing it once.  Where "wearing it" doesn't mean "tried it on" it means - put on in the morning and then kept wearing all day.   If you're lucky, then you could wash it and it nobody would be able to tell.  It would probably depend on the clothing in question.

Tags however, can easily be replaced (stores will have tools to do this) so removing them wouldn't really constitute a change to the clothes themselves.