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

baddiebasher

Can I just settle the point about receipts?

It does not say in any act that proof must be provided. It is a basis of contract (and criminal) law that "he who accuses must prove". Does not apply to everything (see part 5A of Sale of Goods Act) though.

But where it comes down to proof of purchase, it is for the buyer to prove their claim - that they bought the goods in question from the store in question. that it is within any timeframe requirement and the loss (or cost rather) can be shown. A witness is not proof - just a not a very good source of evidence. Anyone can say "yes such and such bought this off you last week". Without any evidence to back it up it is rather feeble (unless of course it was the shop assistant who served you).

Ultimately if you cannot prove that you purchased the item within a timeframe, price etc then the seller is reasonably entitled to refuse to refund unless such proof is given.

AllSeeingEye_2

Pretty much what I was about to post. The proof is not any aspect of the SOGA. The SOGA defines the workings of the contract when selling goods between buyer and seller.

If the buyer wants to apply any aspect of the act they must first prove the contract between themselves and the seller actually exists.

pan111

My Uncles Technika TFT bought from Tesco's at the beginning of the year went !!!!!! last night, but he cant find the receipt and paid cash and doesnt have the box...

If he takes it back are they likely to kick up a fuss? ...it still has the serial number on it if they are worried its a stolen one and he's trying it on

Also, his one isnt HD and he paid £199 for it...if they dont have an equivelent would they give him a same value replacement?

uganda

baddiebasher wrote: »

Can I just settle the point about receipts?

It does not say in any act that proof must be provided. It is a basis of contract (and criminal) law that "he who accuses must prove". Does not apply to everything (see part 5A of Sale of Goods Act) though.

But where it comes down to proof of purchase, it is for the buyer to prove their claim - that they bought the goods in question from the store in question. that it is within any timeframe requirement and the loss (or cost rather) can be shown. A witness is not proof - just a not a very good source of evidence. Anyone can say "yes such and such bought this off you last week". Without any evidence to back it up it is rather feeble (unless of course it was the shop assistant who served you).

Ultimately if you cannot prove that you purchased the item within a timeframe, price etc then the seller is reasonably entitled to refuse to refund unless such proof is given.

Thank you for this post. I mean no offence when I say that it doesn't fully answer my question. As an illiterate in law, I still find the proof business confusing.

I copied a couple of sentences into an earlier post:

'it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase' (from Consumer Direct)

and

'Basically, the answer is no but you will need another proof of purchase.' (from DTI/BERR)

These seem ambiguous to me. I have also read that proof of purchase is implicit in products exclusive to the store in question (I have seen objections to this idea on these boards which may or may not be valid).

So it is quite difficult for ordinary punters to make sense of it all. The law can be very complex and even experts regularly get it wrong.

Is there a definitive answer to what constitutes proof of purchase? If it is reasonable for a customer not to have an actual receipt (which the law seems to recognise) is it not reasonable for him/her not to have alternative proofs (not everyone has a clubcard or equivalent or uses a card to pay)?

Is mere evidence definitely insufficient? Presumably if a case where there was no receipt or any other obvious proof of purchase got to court (unlikely perhaps) the judge would make a decision based on 'the balance of probabilities'? Or perhaps not, I don't know.

Sorry to bang on, I just think this thread could do with some good honest chapter and verse so that MSE members can be better informed about their rights and obligations as consumers.

DCFC79

The way I see it is that if an item is faulty within say 3 months of buying it then you take it to the store you got it from or another store with the receipt for a refund or replacement,

uganda

DCFC79 wrote: »

The way I see it is that if an item is faulty within say 3 months of buying it then you take it to the store you got it from or another store with the receipt for a refund or replacement,

That would obviously be the ideal scenario. But I'm talking about where there is no receipt or it cannot be found.

AllSeeingEye_2

uganda wrote: »

I have also read that proof of purchase is implicit in products exclusive to the store in question.

But if they stole the item? That actually is a very common scam, steal an item then bring it back in for a refund.

uganda

AllSeeingEye wrote: »

But if they stole the item? That actually is a very common scam, steal an item then bring it back in for a refund.

Thank you, I realise that is a possibility and I went on to mention that there had already been objections to it on here (including that one) but it doesn't really get to the nub of the question. I am simply telling you about the interpretations that I read, right or wrong. What I am looking for is a more comprehensive (perhaps exhaustive is impossible) overview of consumer rights and responsibilities, particularly where it is difficult to prove a purchase, and particularly what the law says about it and how we should interpret the law, regardless of whether we agree with the law or not or think it is effective.

baddiebasher

uganda wrote: »

Thank you for this post. I mean no offence when I say that it doesn't fully answer my question. As an illiterate in law, I still find the proof business confusing.

I copied a couple of sentences into an earlier post:

'it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase' (from Consumer Direct)

and

'Basically, the answer is no but you will need another proof of purchase.' (from DTI/BERR)

These seem ambiguous to me. I have also read that proof of purchase is implicit in products exclusive to the store in question (I have seen objections to this idea on these boards which may or may not be valid).

So it is quite difficult for ordinary punters to make sense of it all. The law can be very complex and even experts regularly get it wrong.

Is there a definitive answer to what constitutes proof of purchase? If it is reasonable for a customer not to have an actual receipt (which the law seems to recognise) is it not reasonable for him/her not to have alternative proofs (not everyone has a clubcard or equivalent or uses a card to pay)?

Is mere evidence definitely insufficient? Presumably if a case where there was no receipt or any other obvious proof of purchase got to court (unlikely perhaps) the judge would make a decision based on 'the balance of probabilities'? Or perhaps not, I don't know.

Sorry to bang on, I just think this thread could do with some good honest chapter and verse so that MSE members can be better informed about their rights and obligations as consumers.

I think it comes down to poor wording. The OFT is renowned for it (their guide to price indications for example, in its previous form was full of subjectives like "should" instead of "must"). A seller MAY simply take your word for it and give you a refund. Another may insist on proof. Neither is incorrect. It is merely a case of what a seller CAN do.

You are talking about the English legal system now which is a whole different kettle of fish and, imho, too complex and unecessary to debate here.

The best advice I can give is to keep all receipts for anything that you may want to take back. A receipt is the best, but not the only form of proof.

Statements etc can also be used but they do not show the actual item - a problem if the goods were purchased with others and the individual price cannot be ascertained.

However you can alway get the seller to check their records. If you can provide the details and their records confirm this, then that should be good enough.

If the return is fairly recent, you could always seek any shop staff you dealt with and try and get them to confirm your claim.

But a receipt is always the best form of proof.

Brooker_Dave

pan111 wrote: »

My Uncles Technika TFT bought from Tesco's at the beginning of the year went !!!!!! last night, but he cant find the receipt and paid cash and doesnt have the box...

If he takes it back are they likely to kick up a fuss? ...it still has the serial number on it if they are worried its a stolen one and he's trying it on

Also, his one isnt HD and he paid £199 for it...if they dont have an equivelent would they give him a same value replacement?

They won't take it back without reciept or some other proof of purchase.

Tell him to look for a company that repairs TVs.