Bank statement as proof of purchase

highlander58

‘Ceoemail’ dot com; it’s my ‘go-to’ for banging heads together! You can imagine a store manager would be reluctant to do anything that affects his branch’s sales targets, but even less keen to have the spotlight fall on them from the ‘big cheeses’ at HQ.

If the manager has already offered a credit note for the full amount you paid, then de facto they have already accepted you did buy the shoes. They just don’t want to hand over any money. Instead they want you to repurchase from them - no doubt spending even more (post sale) in the process.

Just quote the manager/CEO your legal rights under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act - hopefully that’ll focus a few minds. The faulty goods are over 30 days old, so they get 1 chance to either repair or replace. Otherwise it’s a cash refund, please! - or the ‘small claims court’.

But ‘replace’ might actually be the better option for you - IF you can find something you like in their current range that’s roughly equivalent to the ones you bought. That’s worth more to you than the money & it might suit them better too, as they still don’t have to hand over any cash.
But make sure you get/keep the receipt this time!

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81970639#Comment_81970639

There are many other factors to consider… condition of the goods, they are supposed to be 3 months old but if they had dainite soles and all the nubs have been warn away then thats not possible with regular wear.

3 - by this logic I can return anything I've bought anywhere to Tesco as long as 2 is also true? Things are better if the shoes were £98.45, they are the only product they sell at that price and thats how much the statement shows. Clearly if they sell 90% of their products at £29.99 and you the transaction you are claiming is the one shows you spent £99.97 its less clear.

In this case its not relevant but if we are talking about a return in a short window and your statement shows multiple transactions for £29.99 with them with one being within the window and the others being outside it its poor evidence of when you bought them.

4 - may have missed it but dont think the OP has confirmed this at this point but its weakened if most their products are the same price

As to why someone would try it on:

• Genuine mistake, they bought a load of shoes from different shops on the around the same time day and just can't remember which one was from where
• They bought them from somewhere much less convenient to return to (eg overseas)
• They believe this shop has a more generous returns policy or is known for being more lax on returns with the true shop potentially having already rejected the return
• Was a gift from someone else and they'd rather not tell the gifter that they are faulty
• The original company they bought it from has gone bust
• Bought the item off eBay or a street seller or know its stolen/counterfeit or Freecycle
• The original shop can't provide a replacement and they'd rather a replacement to refund, esp if bought in the sales so the refund wouldnt fund a replacement elsewhere

I cut my teeth in the world of work at a mail order company (before the days of internet shopping). A large number of people have absolutely no morals or think that fraud with against a company is a victimless crime. For whatever reason we sold lots of packs of knickers, boxers, pants, t-shirts etc with 2 black and 2 white, I'd be a richer man today if I got £5 for every time someone called up and said did we have a pack with 4 white, we say no, they order 2 packs of the mixed then a week later return one as faulty saying it was delivered with 4 black… obviously they've taken the 2 white out, put the 2 unwanted black in and send them back. Similarly people order a pair of trainers, a year later they order the identical trainers, they are then returned saying "looks like they've been worn before", needless to say when we get them back they've been worn for about a year and are on their last legs. With school shoes it was more obvious because the new pair ordered would often be in a larger size but the returned ones are in the size they had previously ordered.

None of these are accusations against the OP but when you see people "trying it on" (aka trying to commit fraud) every day you get cynical.

Okell

The OP says it's the shop's own brand though…

user1977

people order a pair of trainers, a year later they order the identical trainers, they are then returned saying "looks like they've been worn before", needless to say when we get them back they've been worn for about a year and are on their last legs

As I alluded to above, that's the sort of instance where even a till receipt doesn't provide conclusive proof that it's a legit return.

Anyway, it's up to the retailer to defend any such claim and the court to determine who is more plausible.

Okell

Also it's a bit like Occam's razor.

Which is the more likely scenario:

1 that the OP is inherently honest, bought the shoes from national chain shoe shop A and has a transaction with them showing on their bank statement, but no sales receipt, or

2 that the OP is inherently dishonest, bought the shoes from trader B and has no receipt or other evidence of purchase from them, but has a "convenient" transaction with national chain shoe shop A on their bank statement, so the OP decides to attempt to defraud A?

I think I know which one I would say was more probable.

To think it was scenario 2 you'd have to assume from the outset that the OP was lying, and if it got to court I don't think that is an assumption that a judge would make lightly unless the OP came across as patently dishonest and was wearing an eye mask, a hooped jumper and had a bag marked "Swag" over their shoulder.

Yes - scenario 2 is possible, but it's less probable than scenario 1.

And yes - there might be other possible scenarios ,but I'd suggest they're all even less probable than scenario 2.

Ergates

3 - by this logic I can return anything I've bought anywhere to Tesco as long as 2 is also true? Things are better if the shoes were £98.45, they are the only product they sell at that price and thats how much the statement shows. Clearly if they sell 90% of their products at £29.99 and you the transaction you are claiming is the one shows you spent £99.97 its less clear.

That's not a particularly good analogy - as people who shop at Tesco tend to buy multiple things at once, and also tend to shop there regularly (once a week for instance). Whereas this isn't so much the case with shoe shops (for most people).

But if we take your analogy and work with it: The scenario the OP is facing is - if bought you a pack of Tesco own brand biscuits, found there was something wrong wtih them and took them back to the store. Then the person on the customer service desk said "Without a receipt, how do we know you bought these from Tesco?" when they have "Tesco" written on the packaging in big letters.

So whilst, yes, it is possible the OP bought an identical pair of shoes a year or so ago, wore them out, then bought another pair the same 3 months ago, then waited 3 months to return the original pair…. but that doesn't seem very likely.

highlander58

Wow! Some of you have totally disappeared down a rabbit hole of your own making!
The OP didn’t say the store denied the purchase actually happened - simply that the store would only offer a credit note for faulty goods without a receipt. All the rest is way off topic!

Store staff (even managers) often confuse the legal rights of consumers in respect of faulty goods, with their own (totally discretionary) returns policies for unwanted goods. The former is legally binding & does not require a receipt - just reasonable proof of purchase (like a bank statement or own-brand goods). The latter is totally at the store”s discretion, & can insist on a receipt - just for a credit note, let alone a cash refund.

in this case the goods were faulty so the 2015 Consume4 Rights Act applies. As the goods were over 30 days old, the retailer gets 1 chance to repair/replace - otherwise a full refund is due. As I said before - it might be in OP’s best interests to persuade the retailer to replace with something they like from current stock. That would be worth far more to OP than cash & costs the retailer less too.