Overcharged but refused refund - is this right?

supersaver_2

I am enquiring on behalf of a friend and while I know the basics of Consumer Rights I'm not totally sure where she would stand on this one...and I'm hoping some of you lovely MSE people can help!!

My friend bought a pair of trousers in the sale at a store in Belfast (its not a chain but an independent retailer) on 28th December in the sale. They didn't have the trousers in her size on the shop floor so these were brought down from the store room for her. She bought them, along with some other items and paid in cash. It was only when she got home and checked her receipt that she noticed that instead of being charged the sale price for the trousers she had been charged full price - therefore being overcharged by £28. She's not from Belfast so only last night had an opportunity to come back to the store to get a refund for the overcharge. On explaining the problem to the SA, the SA admitted that she had been overcharged at the time but that she could not issue a refund or credit note as the tills had changed since the time of purchase. My question is, essentially, is this right?? Where does she stand on an overcharged (which the store admits did happen) but a refusal on any kind of refund or even a credit note for said store?

valiant23

If the range of items were all in the sale then the S.A. has told a load of fibs and your friend is entitled to a refund.

The only time they wouldn't is if only certain individual items are in the sale but different sizes/colours are not. I seem to remember a sports store selling the same brand of trainer in different colours and one colour was more expensive.

On explaining the problem to the SA, the SA admitted that she had been overcharged at the time but that she could not issue a refund or credit note as the tills had changed since the time of purchase.

Translates into, "I couldn't really be arsed so I'll see if I can b/s my way out of it"

Good luck

supersaver_2

They were definitely in the sale - does it make any difference given the delay in letting the store know or is this covered in consumer rights such as customers statutory rights?

peb

Im a bit confused by this.

The contract took place when your friend paid for the trousers and thus she has accepted them at the higher price. It would be difficult to challenge the contract on "mistake" as she has had them for a little while. I cannot see any help under contract law.

However I would recommend that she take the complaint further as most companies will honour the intention.... If no response then threaten to involve trading standard as it may come under their jurisdiciton.

woohoo_postingid

How did she not notice she was paying an extra £28??

supersaver_2

tbh I really don't know *HOW* she missed that she was paying an extra £28 quid (I know I certainly would!!) but she didn't until she was home. Ah well....live and learn I suppose - she'll check the next time I bet. I've advised her to contact trading standards to see if they can help. Thanks everyone for your comments :beer:

fergual2

I suggest phone up and ask to speak to owner of shop. Explain situation and add "I have bought many items from your shop in the past without a hiccup la-de-da..." Then calmly ask for the refund as it was not clear that the item was not reduced sale item at time of purchase.

wherediditallgo

If the sale items were only those in specific sizes & her size wasn't one of them, then she wouldn't be entitled to a refund on the basis of an over-charge, as her size wasn't included in the sale offer. She needs to establish whether her size was included but just not on the rack/shelf, & that's something she'd find very difficult to prove, especially after so much time has passed.

When one of my friends bought a pair of shoes from a local shop believing them to be in the sale & queried the receipt as soon as she got it, she was told that hers were the usual price because only specific sizes of that range were included in the sale (the shop was trying to get rid of sizes that weren't selling well). She said that she didn't want them in that case & was given an immediate refund. Your friend's trousers came from somewhere away from the shop floor, making it even less likely that her size was included, & the onus was on her to check her receipt before leaving the shop. If she speaks to the manager, they may give her the refund as a gesture of goodwill, but she's not entitled to it because her own account of the story backs up the store, not her - her size wasn't there when she went in, & they got them from the store-room for her.

A key point is that she didn't buy the trousers in the sale - she bought them from the shop while the sale was on. There is a difference between the two statements, & there's no incentive for a store manager to give a refund when he hasn't broken the law & there's no future custom at stake. After all, from his point of view, it's taken her 3 weeks to return to the store to query the matter, & she doesn't live in the area so isn't likely to be back any time soon (if ever), so why should he do her any favours? There's not much chance of him losing a good customer, so he's very likely to stick to his guns. If I was the owner & this situation presented itself to me, I'd explain the position to her politely but firmly, & she wouldn't get a refund from me. I think "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) applies in this case. Many stores have signs advising you to check your change before you leave, & you really should.

valiant23

peb wrote: »

Im a bit confused by this.

The contract took place when your friend paid for the trousers and thus she has accepted them at the higher price. It would be difficult to challenge the contract on "mistake" as she has had them for a little while.
.

The 'contract' is not legally binding as the terms of the 'contract' entered into were illegal, as it is illegal to advertise items at one price then sell them at a higher one.

wherediditallgo

valiant23 wrote: »

The 'contract' is not legally binding as the terms of the 'contract' entered into were illegal, as it is illegal to advertise items at one price then sell them at a higher one.

That wasn't the case here, though. The goods weren't advertised at all. They weren't even available to buy until a pair was brought from the store room for the OP's friend.

catsonic

what does it say on the reciept regarding refunds?

It would normally say that you can bring them back within 28 days and still with tags on with reciept and you'll get a full refund or exchange.

At boots it says if you dont have a reciept you will only get an exchange.

At sportsworld they will only exchange even if you have reciept.