Tesco Customer Services says no refund on faulty goods if no receipt!

Brooker_Dave

mandragora wrote: »

He very magnanimously offered to let me have goods to the value of £2.50 'from anywhere in the store, it doesn't have to be just clothing'. I caved in at that point

The theory being that if you create enough of a scene over £2 they'll just give you £2 so that you go away?

mandragora_2

dmg24 wrote: »

This is incorrect.

Please can you explain why?

Jo_F

When I worked at B&Q, if a customer brought something back without a receipt, we either gave them a replacement, or they got credit vouchers to the value. If they had a receipt which showed method of payment, then they were refunded in the same method.

dmg24

mandragora wrote: »

Please can you explain why?

Best to explain in a scenario:

I go to my local car boot sale, and they are selling F&F branded tights for £1. I buy said tights. Therefore my contract is with the car boot seller, not Tesco. If the tights are faulty, then based on what you have said, I could go into Tesco, and they would have to prove that I had not bought them from there, which would be practically impossible.

It is up to the customer to provide proof of purchase. However, as you are aware, this does not have to be the receipt, and Tesco could have confirmed POP from your Clubcard details.

vivatifosi

Thanks for idea re Clubcard points, I have a freeview box that they refused to replace when it stopped working as I'd lost the receipt. I never miss a chance to use my Clubcard points, so will phone up again.

AllSeeingEye_2

mandragora wrote: »

Please can you explain why?

Or perhaps you could state the law the says otherwise?

We'd all love to know.

dmg24

AllSeeingEye wrote: »

Or perhaps you could state the law the says otherwise?

We'd all love to know.

SOGA?

Always nice when people come back as an AE! :rolleyes:

uganda

AllSeeingEye wrote: »

Or perhaps you could state the law the says otherwise?

We'd all love to know.

mandragora made a statement which dmg24 said was incorrect so mandragora quite reasonably asked why it was incorrect. He then told her why he believed it was.

So I don't understand where your sarcasm comes from. You don't know the law sufficiently yourself, otherwise you would surely have enlightened us all by now.

For my own part, I don't know the law well enough either and I find explanations of the SOGA can be ambiguous, with phrases such as 'it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase' (my italics - why do they not just say it is not unreasonable, or it is reasonable?). The Act itself I have been looking at but can't find the relevant bit about proofs of purchase. Perhaps someone who knows the relevant bit can point us towards it?

AllSeeingEye_2

uganda wrote: »

You don't know the law sufficiently yourself, otherwise you would surely have enlightened us all by now.

I know for a fact I'm right. You need some sort of proof of purchase. The onus isn't "on them to prove I didn't buy them there".

I know this for a fact. See post nine is this thread for reference.

I'm just curious as to where people get their incorrect information from seeing they write it so confidently.

Others will read such incorrect information and be lead to believe it's correct which then doesn't help anyone.

uganda

I wasn't questioning whether you were right or not, I was objecting to your unwarranted sarcasm.

You may have noticed that I specifically distanced myself from claims to have knowledge of the law, and requested that someone quote the relevant parts of it that I couldn't find.

It is all very well to point to post 9, which quotes Trading Standards interpretation, which I obviously respect, but the bit I was quoting came from the BERR site:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Q7 refers. Why the use of the word 'might'? I am not saying either interpretation is wrong, merely that the phrases

'it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase'

and

'Basically, the answer is no but you will need another proof of purchase.'

do not necessarily mean the same thing.

Does anyone know the relevant part of the Act, rather than these interpretations of them?