A little help on consumer rights

borderlinemeath

Duckjob wrote: »

It's not the right of Penneys, Dunnes or any other retailer to dictate that they won't refund without receipt. The law doesn't require a sales receipt, it requires evidence of purchase.

If a dispute goes legal, then the court, not the retailer will decide if that evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the item was bought from the store.

But only if an item is faulty. And the OPs item was not faulty just "horrible"

If a dispute went legal over a non faulty item (without a receipt/outside of store policy) the consumer doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Consumer law states that there is no obligation on the retailer to refund/replace/repair unless an item is faulty.

Duckjob

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But only if an item is faulty. And the OPs item was not faulty just "horrible"

If a dispute went legal over a non faulty item (without a receipt/outside of store policy) the consumer doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Consumer law states that there is no obligation on the retailer to refund/replace/repair unless an item is faulty.

I know. Different scenario for faulty or non-faulty. For a non-faulty item you're getting into what the stated return policy of the store is.

But in a court situation, first hurdle is likely to be the store asking for the consumer to provide reasonable evidence that they did in fact buy the item from the store. If that can't be demonstrated to the courts satisfaction, then whether the item was faulty or not is academic as the consumer doesn't have a case.

Point I was making was the Sale of Goods Act doesn't require that evidence of purchase must be a store receipt - therefore, no retailer can lay down terms that override that law and say they must have a sales receipt to refund. They should get slapped on the wrist if they even try to state that.

borderlinemeath

Duckjob wrote: »

I know. Different scenario for faulty or non-faulty. For a non-faulty item you're getting into what the stated return policy of the store is.

But in a court situation, first hurdle is likely to be the store asking for the consumer to provide reasonable evidence that they did in fact buy the item from the store. If that can't be demonstrated to the courts satisfaction, then whether the item was faulty or not is academic as the consumer doesn't have a case.

Point I was making was the Sale of Goods Act doesn't require that evidence of purchase must be a store receipt - therefore, no retailer can lay down terms that override that law and say they must have a sales receipt to refund. They should get slapped on the wrist if they even try to state that.

This thread was never about faulty items or the sale of goods act.

I just feel that you're offering unnecessary additional information that may cloud an already confused consumer.

axer

dudara wrote: »

If no, then you are at the mercy of the individual retailer's returns policy. And a lot will depend on whether or not you have a receipt. The store is perfectly entitled to refund only the sale price, if they so choose. Legally, they do not have to refund you at all, as there is nothing wrong with the item. Their policy should be clearly outlined somewhere in the store or on the receipt.

This is exactly it. The shop can offer you 50c back as a refund which you do not have to accept. They are under absolutely no obligation to refund the entire cost - they get to decide how much they refund unless of course if there was pre-agreement either by being told a policy or a policy being displayed that states that a full refund is to be given. Granted if you do not have a receipt then you cannot prove how much you paid.

Duckjob

borderlinemeath wrote: »

This thread was never about faulty items or the sale of goods act.

I just feel that you're offering unnecessary additional information that may cloud an already confused consumer.

What on earth are you on about? I only referred briefly to a "non-faulty" item (which was in line with OPs situation) in my first post, and only did so because as always in these threads people make inaccurate militant posts about the store "having" to refund the item in full.

You were the one who brought up the faulty/non-faulty issue again, not me. I responded to your post because you quoted me

Also, you can't talk about consumer rights in a retail situation without considering the legislation that underpins those rights.

Corruptedmorals

Duckjob wrote: »

It's not the right of Penneys, Dunnes or any other retailer to dictate that they won't refund without receipt. The law doesn't require a sales receipt, it requires evidence of purchase.

If a dispute goes legal, then the court, not the retailer will decide if that evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the item was bought from the store.

Goodwill refunds are not covered by the law- I was referring to these stores refund policies, which can dictate whatever they want.

borderlinemeath

Duckjob wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? I only referred briefly to a "non-faulty" item (which was in line with OPs situation) in my first post, and only did so because as always in these threads people make inaccurate militant posts about the store "having" to refund the item in full.

You were the one who brought up the faulty/non-faulty issue again, not me. I responded to your post because you quoted me

Also, you can't talk about consumer rights in a retail situation without considering the legislation that underpins those rights.

If you read back on your posts, yours are the ones that start referring to legalities and stating that receipts don't need to be shown - which is only applicable when the item is faulty.

I don't know why you are trying to start a debate on this, I'm not disputing what you are saying - just that it's not relevant to this thread.

Duckjob

borderlinemeath wrote: »

If you read back on your posts, yours are the ones that start referring to legalities and stating that receipts don't need to be shown - which is only applicable when the item is faulty.

I don't know why you are trying to start a debate on this, I'm not disputing what you are saying - just that it's not relevant to this thread.

More relevent than a pile of back-seat modding posts You're actually doing the disputing, I'm just responding...

My point, once again- evidence of purchase is ALWAYS relevant, because if a dispute reaches the court, heels are going to be firmly dug in on both sides - evidence (or lack thereof) of purchase is going to be an issue. This is true regardless of whether the item is faulty or not.

In other words, in court it's a easier win for the retailer if they say "where is the evidence that the item was purchased from us?" and the consumer can't supply it, than if they have to get into the ins and outs of their published returns policy.

borderlinemeath

Eh, since when was saying something was irrelevant "back seat modding?"

This thread was about an unwanted gift and the responses I gave were in relation to that.

I just think you're trying to confuse the original issue so we'll agree to disagree.

Duckjob

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Eh, since when was saying something was irrelevant "back seat modding?"

This thread was about an unwanted gift and the responses I gave were in relation to that.

I just think you're trying to confuse the original issue so we'll agree to disagree.

You're just being argumentative now

When you replied to one of my posts, I didn't disagree with you on anything, just clarified, and you could quite easily have left it at that. But instead you chose to drag the thread a mile OT by giving your considered opinion of my posts on thread. All seems quite unnecessary...

In any discussion the subject matter naturally widens as more people discuss it. I'm assuming the OP is capable of extracting the relevant points to his/her case, so I don't see the problem, especially if the wider discussion can help the understanding of other posters with similar issues.

Seems to me that finger-wagging at other posters and creating these sort of offshoots on thread is a lot more irrelevant and disruptive.

Agree we'll agree to disagree