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

uganda

baddiebasher wrote: »

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.

Hi baddiebasher, I certainly made no suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about. The reason I put my questions primarily to you was that I was pretty certain you do, and I am grateful for the time you've given to your replies.

It's just a shame the discussion keeps getting hijacked by people who miss the main points, but I suppose that's difficult to avoid on a public forum.

I will certainly look up the stuff in the last paragraph when I get a chance - thanks for the pointer.

I think your comments re: the masses of material on this subject, the hours it would take just to cover the basics, the fact that there is no short way of answering my questions confirm what I have been trying to say to some others on here - that there are a lot of grey areas, and it doesn't make sense to make pronouncements from a position of being 100% correct. You are an expert in consumer law and presumably even you can't do that. And to be fair you haven't tried to.

This is often the way of course - the expert knows how complex the subject is and therefore how much he doesn't know about it, while the amateur thinks it's simple and he knows everything!

Thanks for your help anyway, it is appreciated.

marleyboy

Proof of purchase can be obtained via your bank a\c, credit card, to say you bought such an item. If you paid cash for the item, the receipt is all YOU really have that you bought it from the store.

The Store have proof you bought it, from stock levels to till receipts, right down to serial number on the box. However as it is not the stores discretion to prove you bought it from them (unless you stole it), that remains proof to them, not proof to you.

If you have no receipt, and no way of "proving" you bought the item from them, they are legally entitled to refuse to refund you, whether or not they do is down to their own discretion. As it would be upto you to "prove" it, and not them.

uganda

baddiebasher wrote: »

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.

Would that mean that asking a seller to check their records would not be an option without their goodwill? Also, is the case law easily accessible online?

uganda

marleyboy wrote: »

Proof of purchase can be obtained via your bank a\c, credit card, to say you bought such an item. If you paid cash for the item, the receipt is all YOU really have that you bought it from the store.

The Store have proof you bought it, from stock levels to till receipts, right down to serial number on the box. However as it is not the stores discretion to prove you bought it from them (unless you stole it), that remains proof to them, not proof to you.

If you have no receipt, and no way of "proving" you bought the item from them, they are legally entitled to refuse to refund you, whether or not they do is down to their own discretion. As it would be upto you to "prove" it, and not them.

Well, I can't honestly dispute any of that, to be fair!

I just wonder whether, if it got as far as court, if the judge would not make a decision based on the 'balance of probabilities' rather than the level of actual proof. This would only apply to large items, in practical terms, I guess.

I think if you are right, then for me it would cease to be a legal matter. If the shop refused to check their records because they were not obliged to I would be forced to say 'Fair enough, it's your legal right not to co-operate, but I'm not going to use you again and I'm going to make sure I warn as many of my fellow-consumers as possible'. This would only apply if I was sure it was something that wouldn't take long of course, I wouldn't expect them to have staff on it for hours on end just for my benefit!

Anyway, I shall investigate further. Only trouble is, the more you know about something, the more you realise you don't know! Oh well...

baddiebasher

Uganda - I'm sorry but I have stated quite categorically the situation as to why it is for the seller to prove the loss. The fact that you do not like the answer is unfortunate, btu it does not make it wrong.

Put it this way. Give me the £100 I lent to you last week.

DCFC79

uganda wrote: »

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

if theres no receipt then i dont think theres nothing said person can do,

baddiebasher

A receipt is the BEST form of proof in these cases, but not the only one. See above posts!

uganda

baddiebasher wrote: »

Uganda - I'm sorry but I have stated quite categorically the situation as to why it is for the seller to prove the loss. The fact that you do not like the answer is unfortunate, btu it does not make it wrong.

Put it this way. Give me the £100 I lent to you last week.

I had no problem with your explanation, and certainly don't dismiss assertations made by other people simply because I don't like what's been said.

I have not said anything is wrong at all, I am merely trying to get to the heart of the matter, which does not mean I'm dismissing your advice (promise!).

It would indeed be difficult for you to prove you lent me £100 (I'm wondering, since we're at it, why you leave it at just a hundred!) but it would be difficult to prove even if you had done it. Verbal agreements have some significance in law, I believe, but again, it would have to be decided on the 'balance of probabilities' wouldn't it? In any case, as an individual I don't keep the records that retailers do, also we wouldn't be talking about goods in your hand with serial numbers all over them so it's not a great analogy.

That does NOT mean I disagree with your general point, I just think there may be greater room for manoeuvre within the law than we sometimes acknowledge, especially in a Constitution as organic as our one. Anyway, I shall do further research when I get time, starting with some of the sources you kindly pointed out earlier, before I make any more ill-informed comments!

hollydays

I would just like to say that about a year ago I took an item back to a diy shop that was faulty.OH had disposed of the receipt.

I knew I wasn't entitled to a refund without proof of purchase,and the staff on the tills told me that too.

Having a bit of previous experience of the way of the world,I asked if they would be prepared to give a credit note.
They went and asked,and came back and said they would....you see....if you ask,sometimes you get..and thats not written in the Sale Of Goods Act ,it's written in the" There's no Logic to it,but give it a Try, Act" (actually the logic is,shops will avoid having to give cash back if ever they can,but other compromises are sometimes acceptable to their Managers who can use common sense in these situations,though the Staff are sometimes lacking in that quality,and/or are not permitted to use discretion)

DCFC79

baddiebasher wrote: »

A receipt is the BEST form of proof in these cases, but not the only one. See above posts!

yes i know theres bank or credit card staements you can use but surely they are only useful if you only bought 1 item at the time and not along with other items