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

uganda

baddiebasher wrote: »

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.

This, baddiebasher, is exactly why I get tired of the amateur lawyers on these threads saying 'I know this for a fact', 'I am 100% correct', 'I know for a fact I'm right' etc etc etc. English, and indeed all of British, law is complicated and satisfactory answers to questions such as these are rarely short.

I hope you won't take it as ingratitude after you took the trouble to respond if I say that your comments about it being best to have a receipt are superfluous as my post presumes the buyer either didn't get one or can't find it. I am quite interested in this bit, however:

baddiebasher wrote: »

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.

This certainly seems reasonable, but how far can one go with this? Is it reasonable to make shop staff trawl through records if, say you can only remember the time to the nearest couple of hours and you can't be 100% sure exactly which checkout it was? I don't know how easy these things are to track down - I suppose if they only sell half a dozen of the items in question a day it makes it relatively simple.

I guess it comes down to common sense at the end of the day. It seems to me at this stage of the discussion that there is no definitive answer to the question of how to prove a purchase where no receipt or other obvious document is available. The law allows that it is unreasonable to expect someone to produce a receipt, as receipts aren't always given. Should it follow that it is reasonable not to be able to produce a definitive bank or card statement (perhaps you paid cash) or a clubcard or similar statement (not everyone has one of these).

I think checking the shop records is a potentially good escape, but not if it's going to take them hours to find it. I imagine the law would allow a customer to demand they check, but only as thoroughly as is reasonable. Certainly, I wouldn't be happy as a retailer to have my staff going through the records for hours on end for the benefit of someone who can't otherwise prove purchase, but if it was a matter of a couple of minutes, then I would think that was fine. What the law says may be a different matter, I don't know.

Thank you also for your explanation of the anomaly between Trading Standards' 'will be needed' and BERR's 'might be needed'. I really do think official bodies should stick with what buyers and sellers must do rather than what they may choose to do, otherwise the advice will not be consistent. Some shops will show goodwill, others will take a harder line, that is to be expected, but the consumer needs to know his/her rights, not possibilities.

That said, I do think the most important weapons in a consumer's armoury, especially where the law leaves grey areas, are courtesy, flexibility, a ready smile and respect for who you're dealing with. Going in all guns blazing may sometimes work, but it's more likely to see you beaten before you start.

uganda

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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

Tell him to look for a company that repairs TVs.

pan111, you will see from the broader discussion in this thread that it may be worth avoiding unhelpful comments such as this one.

It will certainly be more difficult to get this sorted out without a receipt, and it is certainly worth thinking about whether you have alternatives, such as bank, card or clubcard statements that might show the transaction.

If you really haven't got anything, then can he/you remember the exact date and place of purchase? If so, that should be simple for them to find on their records, particularly since it's a large item they won't have sold many of. It may even be simple to track down if you're close with the date, though I don't know if the actual serial number will show or not (I know someone who will claim to know the answer to this but I would be sceptical of anything that person says!)

So give that a go. As I said in the post above, be nice about it and they'll make things easier for you, also you'll be glad you were pleasant if you do end up relying on their goodwill after all.

uganda

d.edna wrote: »

Right, Listen, CLUBCARD STATEMENTS DO NOT STATE TRANSACTIONS NOR DO THEY SUPPLY RECEIPTS.

Firstly, there is no need to take that tone with someone even if you think they're wrong.

Secondly, I didn't say that clubcard statements stated transactions, I said they might.

Thirdly, I only have your word for it that you worked for Tesco's. You are not a trustworthy poster.

Fourthly, even if you did work for Tesco, your attitude on these boards and the accuracy of what you say would call anything you post into question in any case.

Fifthly, even if what you say about clubcard statements is correct, since I was only giving a possible example of proof of purchase, my central point and questions remain the same.

Brooker_Dave

uganda wrote: »

pan111, you will see from the broader discussion in this thread that it may be worth avoiding unhelpful comments such as this one.

The man has a broken televison set, he has no proof of purchase of any kind, his sole option is to have it repaired somewhere.

Simple as.

HTH.

AllSeeingEye_2

uganda wrote: »

This, baddiebasher, is exactly why I get tired of the amateur lawyers on these threads saying 'I know this for a fact', 'I am 100% correct', 'I know for a fact I'm right' etc etc etc.

Two of those seem to be phrases I've used (not sure if you meant me?).

My point was they can ask for proof of purchase and no law states otherwise, this is correct!

uganda

d.edna wrote: »

Well you been spouting incorrect info in other threads aswell

I haven't been spouting any incorrect information anywhere. Would you like to quote from the other threads where I've done this instead of making your usual empty accusations? I don't say things like 'Right, Listen', 'Shut up boy' etc the way you do then 'you need not reply' when people make perfectly good responses. I don't suppose you apologised to that poster on the Sky thread whom you accused of 'talking crap' about her monthly subscriptions, have you? Even though you were proved to have been completely wrong? No, didn't think so.

d.edna wrote: »

People who skim read won't pick up the word "might" so they will go running with their clubcard to be told you can't use it

People who use these forums correctly will not take the word of anyone on here, not mine, not yours, not anybody's, without researching it correctly, and certainly not if they've only 'skimmed' what has been written.

d.edna wrote: »

Neither are you in all fairness, Do you want me to scan my Clock card/cardinal card/privalledge card or terms and conditions of employment, A picture of my old uniform maybe?

I don't need or want proof that you worked for Tesco's. I believe you, but I only have your word for it. You are not trustworthy because you say things that are wrong, like with the Sky poster above and accusing me of pm'ing you when I didn't (which you still haven't answered me about or apologised for, I wonder why?). Now why am I untrustworthy? Given that I don't state things as fact when I know that I'm not sure, but simple ask questions and make suggestions based on what I think rather than what I know?

d.edna wrote: »

No you didn't you implied something different.

This is a meaningless non-sequitur. It does not relate to what I wrote or what you quoted. My central points and questions remain unaffected by whether or not a clubcard statement is a proof of purchase, because I was only using it as an example. How does your response cover that?

uganda

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The man has a broken televison set, he has no proof of purchase of any kind, his sole option is to have it repaired somewhere.

Simple as.

HTH.

I've already explained why it might not be 'simple as'. In several posts on this thread. And given lots of reasoning behind it. If you disagree, that's fine, I don't claim to be a great expert, but I do know these things are worth pursuing and people generally get a lot further with an open mind and a pleasant disposition than if they just take the defeatist attitude you are advocating. For all I know, he won't get anywhere, just like you say. What I am saying is it's worth him exploring his options before writing them all off.

uganda

AllSeeingEye wrote: »

Two of those seem to be phrases I've used (not sure if you meant me?).

My point was they can ask for proof of purchase and no law states otherwise, this is correct!

Yes I did mean you. It's ironic that I get accused (by d.edna, predictably enough) of 'spouting nonsense' when I never use expressions like this, precisely because I know how complex the law can be and how many different interpretations they are, and therefore how wrong I could be. While you just say 'I am 100% correct' and get off scot-free! Oh well, maybe I'm just bitter...

Anyway, I have no problem with a store asking for proof of purchase, but I don't think legally things are cut and dried when a proof of purchase is not forthcoming. At least it hasn't yet been demonstrated to me by anyone here. Also a store having the right to ask for proof of purchase is not the same as the customer having to provide it, and I don't know where in the law this is stated. I have seen Trading Standards and BERR's interpretations, as have you, but not the actual law. Quite a lot of things are not stated in English law, of course, it's the nature of the beast.

I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, but I do think these boards would be more useful if people spent more time trying to establish the truth rather than proclaiming they know it.

baddiebasher

Uganda - regarding my statement on contract law. There are masses of books on it. There are tons of volumes. Covering the basics will require hours - time i simply do not have.

I did not mean for the comment to be condescending. There is unfortunately no short way of covering the area in the level of detail you seem to be asking for.

Just btw - I do have a good degree in this area so I do know what am talking about.

If you want to look into the matter further I would suggest Harvey & Parry's Consumer Law as well as Googling "contract law". There are plenty of websites covering the subject.

baddiebasher

Just to add after reading further posts, it IS cut and dry when it come to proof. If a seller asks for it, it is for the buyer to provide it. The seller of course does not have to ask for it.

It is not actually written down anywhere because it is an established part of case law already.