Bank statement as proof of purchase

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81970389#Comment_81970389

"… Unless we think the retailer is going to defend the action and somehow persuade the court that it's more likely the OP is telling a pack of lies and they actually got the shoes somewhere else, but nonetheless decided to sue them rather than the other shop?"

To me this is a really strong argument.

If the OP actually bought the shoes from trader B rather than from trader A, why on earth would they go to trader A for a refund when they have no receipt from trader A?

I'm inclined to agree with @user1977 that unless the OP came across as inherently dishonest and a liar, or unless the seller can prove either that they never sold that line of shoes or that the amount on the statement is not consistent with the purchase, then a court would be inclined to accept the bank statement as evidence of purchase from trader A.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6664942/bank-statement-as-proof-of-purchase

As you can see from previous posters there is a difference of opinion as to whether an entry on a bank statement can amount to proof purchase.

The answer seems to be "it depends…"

My own non-lawyer view is that it is and should be evidence of purchase but unfortunately it isn't 100% conclusive as the trader can always argue that you bought something else - although I think that argument on his part would be much weaker than your argument and that you would be more likely to win.

Assuming you have a legal right to a refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 then the trader has to refund you by the same method that you used for the purchase. (But note that the trader is also entitled to one attempt either to repair or to replace before you are entitled to a refund at all).

How much did the shoes cost and if you paid by card was it debit or credit?

Always get receipts.

Okell

And who did you buy from?

A national chain of shoe shops, a local independent shop, a market trader?

Deedoodee

National chain, £60, can’t replace for the same because it was a sale item. Shoes are marked with the same name as the shop

Okell

how were they marked with the shop's name?

Deedoodee

it’s the brand.

Okell

And the shop manager still refuses to accept that you bought it from them? 😆

If you can't get anywhere with the store manager does the chain have a website that you can make a complaint on?

You might also want to consider complaining on their social media?

Also consumers on here are often advised to email the chain's CEO with a complaint. There is a database out there somewhere wih email addresses for the CEOs of UK companies. I'm not sure where it is but I'm sure someone else here can provide a link.

£60 isn't worth suing for - but you could still consider sending a Letter Before Claim to see if they call your bluff

user1977

But it doesn't need to be "100% conclusive". Even a till receipt wouldn't be (how would you know it relates to the same item being returned?).

Deedoodee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81970775#Comment_81970775

yes. I had the bank transaction showing the brand, the shoe with one hole in the top but the rest of it in very good condition (so not normal wear and tear, as he also kept trying to say), the branded reusable bag the shoes came in. And he kept saying without a receipt I didn’t have the proof of purchase

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81970865#Comment_81970865

This is an egregious case of dishonesty on the store managers part. If you responded with anything other than "Are you ####ing kidding me?" at that point then you're a stronger person than I am.

Option 1: Get hold of the CEO email address for the chain and send them a mail detailing the course of events. Be sure to highlight how utterly absurd the managers position is (and if you have their name, include it)

Option 2: Letter before action.