refund policy lidl

purplecow1977

I'll make this quick.
Bought a shoe rack that had to be assembled a couple of weeks ago. Only took it out to assemble it at weekend and discovered that one side is unbalanced,ie doesn't match the other side,its about one inch lower so the whole thing is slanted.

Have no receipt.

Lidl say they won't return anything without proof of purchase,even if its faulty.

I didn't think they could do this. What about the Sale of Goods act?

Its useless now as it doesn't fit like it should.

GarIT

You need proof of purchase that could be a receipt or a bank statement showing the transaction.

purplecow1977

GarIT wrote: »

You need proof of purchase that could be a receipt or a bank statement showing the transaction.

yeah they said.
It was paid with cash.

P. Breathnach

Some of the stuff they sell is their own brand (Silver Crest). The very fact that you have it is proof of purchase.

[For the purpose of this post, I assume that you did not steal it.]

purplecow1977

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some of the stuff they sell is their own brand (Silver Crest). The very fact that you have it is proof of purchase.

[For the purpose of this post, I assume that you did not steal it.]

Will check the box to see if it says Lidl on it but even to look at it,its very obviously their product.

Email from consumer headquarters sticks by the necessity to have receipt as proof of purchase though :-(

Varik

The product being their own brand wouldn't be enough, they don't cover the product itself they have a contract with the person they sold it to which could have been someone else; if you bought it used you'd have no comeback with Lidl only who ever you bought it from.

You need a receipt or a bank/credit card statement.

dudara

The product may obviously be from Lidl, but the proof of purchase demonstrates that you did in fact purchase it (as opposed to "acquiring" it).

purplecow1977

Looks like I'll just have to chalk it down as a lesson learned and be more mindful in future.

I would have swapped it for one that actually WAS working properly but it seems Im just stuck with this dud now. So if anyone knows of anyone who wants a shoe rack that doesn't fit properly,let me know!

Bepolite

Varik wrote: »

The product being their own brand wouldn't be enough, they don't cover the product itself they have a contract with the person they sold it to which could have been someone else; if you bought it used you'd have no comeback with Lidl only who ever you bought it from.

You need a receipt or a bank/credit card statement.

dudara wrote: »

The product may obviously be from Lidl, but the proof of purchase demonstrates that you did in fact purchase it (as opposed to "acquiring" it).

What an own brand product does is put the onus back on to the retailer to locate the transaction, in practice many will simply replace it; if it's of small value. This is exact same principal applies with a bank statement. A receipt does not prove a contract unless it has the identity of the buyer on it.

Own brand products are enough for you to insist that a retailer assists you, and may, depending on what the registrar believes, be enough to be successful in Small Claims Court.

P. Breathnach

I have found Lidl to be very accommodating on a couple of occasions when I had problems with Silver Crest products. I wasn't asked for proof of purchase. That might be due to many of the staff knowing me by sight as a fairly frequent shopper there.

TheChizler

I don't know if you'd be bothered to go down the data protection route and request CCTV footage if you buying it?...

Kungfu

As the old saying goes "If the shoe fits...." :P


You should make up a placard and stand outside Lidl telling other customers what happened. If they get you moved from outside the door , just go out onto the public street/road leading in. The bad publicity might make them give in. I know it's going a long way over a small amount of money but if you want to make a principle of it why not?:)

Corruptedmorals

Unfortunately, there are scumbags out there who do indeed bring back items to the shop they have stolen the goods in question from. There are many, many stores out there like M&S, Penneys etc. where they only sell their own brands but they still require proof of purchase. This is the issue, not so much where you got it from- but proof you paid for it.

They are fully within their rights to demand proof of purchase, so making a scene outside the shop is highly unlikely to budge them.

mitosis

Lidl are one of the more obliging entities when dealing with customer complaints. It is not a lot to ask you actually prove you bought the item in that store.

OP, unless you can produce a receipt I think you may have to suck it up.

Bepolite

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are scumbags out there who do indeed bring back items to the shop they have stolen the goods in question from. There are many, many stores out there like M&S, Penneys etc. where they only sell their own brands but they still require proof of purchase. This is the issue, not so much where you got it from- but proof you paid for it.

They are fully within their rights to demand proof of purchase, so making a scene outside the shop is highly unlikely to budge them.

They can ask for evidence of purchase, which their branding is. Beyond this they need to check their own system of records, to either establish that it's stolen or satisfy themselves it's under warranty etc.

Simply refusing to assist the customer because it might be stolen is unsatisfactory. They are potentially, by inference, accusing a customer of theft if they refuse to take own branding as evidence of purchase.

The issue of theft is pretty much moot anyway; the retailer can simply replace a faulty item and are at no greater loss than from the original theft, which if someone comes back, and they have adequate stock control systems in place, they can uncover by making the checks they are obliged to do for a paying customer.

purplecow1977

Has sucked it up! It cost 12.99 so I don't think its worth causing box furs,a strongly worded email didn't get me very far!

I AM disappointed though but will just take it as a lesson learned. Thankfully it wasn't any more expensive!

mitosis

Bepolite wrote: »

They can ask for evidence of purchase, which their branding is. Beyond this they need to check their own system of records, to either establish that it's stolen or satisfy themselves it's under warranty etc.

Simply refusing to assist the customer because it might be stolen is unsatisfactory. They are potentially, by inference, accusing a customer of theft if they refuse to take own branding as evidence of purchase.

The issue of theft is pretty much moot anyway; the retailer can simply replace a faulty item and are at no greater loss than from the original theft, which if someone comes back, and they have adequate stock control systems in place, they can uncover by making the checks they are obliged to do for a paying customer.

Branding is not evidence of purchase.

They are not obliged to make checks for anyone- least of all someone who cannot demonstrate they are a paying customer

Bepolite

mitosis wrote: »

Branding is not evidence of purchase.

They are not obliged to make checks for anyone- least of all someone who cannot demonstrate they are a paying customer

Have a search in the legal discussions forum, very good thread on the subject. I'm afraid I can't recall the date. I'll leave the point for you to research, the issue is one of the balance of probabilities of who a registrar believes on the day. The default position will be that the the person purchased the item, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

OWN branding is as much evidence of purchase as remembering the person, a bank statement or a receipt. It is perhaps not as strong or as convenient as a receipt but is evidence nevertheless. A receipt is not fool proof either, and can be rebutted.

Beyond the legal aspects, it's just plain good customer service and best practice in relation to loss prevention. As stated above the store is at very little additional loss by replacing an item with a genuine fault. In fact refusal to do so could make them liable under the Liability For Defective Products Act, 1991, should the item be dangerous. (Sorry reverting back to the legal there). It's a different story if the customer is demanding a refund , of course, but I assumed that went without saying.

EDIT: Thread

mitosis

Bepolite wrote: »

Have a search in the legal discussions forum, very good thread on the subject. I'm afraid I can't recall the date. I'll leave the point for you to research, the issue is one of the balance of probabilities of who a registrar believes on the day. The default position will be that the the person purchased the item, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

OWN branding is as much evidence of purchase as remembering the person, a bank statement or a receipt. It is perhaps not as strong or as convenient as a receipt but is evidence nevertheless. A receipt is not fool proof either, and can be rebutted.

Beyond the legal aspects, it's just plain good customer service and best practice in relation to loss prevention. As stated above the store is at very little additional loss by replacing an item with a genuine fault. In fact refusal to do so could make them liable under the Liability For Defective Products Act, 1991, should the item be dangerous. (Sorry reverting back to the legal there). It's a different story if the customer is demanding a refund , of course, but I assumed that went without saying.

But that's plain wrong. As recently as Saturday I saw own brand goods from Penneys, Clarkes and others for sale, in the wrappers, in a liquidators store. At least a receipt is evidence.

Bepolite

mitosis wrote: »

But that's plain wrong. As recently as Saturday I saw own brand goods from Penneys, Clarkes and others for sale, in the wrappers, in a liquidators store. At least a receipt is evidence.

Look I have a propensity to engage in nuanced legal discussions here, for that I apologise, this isn't really the place. I've linked to thread, it does require some understanding of the Laws of Evidence and an extrapolation back to the instant scenario the OP would be in.

If you have a read of that thread it does answer your issue about things being resold, that actually why I mention a receipt is also fallible. Taking another point, albeit an ancillary one raised by me, if you look under the Liability for Defective Products Act, notwithstanding the items were bought else where own branded products is a more complicated issue that they would initially appear.

I'll leave it there, my interest in the subject is probably derailing the thread at this point. Bottom line is that the OP doesn't need a receipt to avail of their consumer rights. That said, how much hassle anyone is going to go to over €12.99 is debatable, it just irks me that someone didn't get good service, or their consumer rights.

TheChizler

Bepolite wrote: »

it just irks me that someone didn't get good service, or their consumer rights.

The OP didn't say they were denied a replacement, just a refund.

homer911

I bought something in aldi recently who have a similar refund policy, and of course I had lost the receipt.

I ended up going and buying a second one (which worked ok/was made correctly/other reason) and then brought the first one back with the new receipt, and got my refund

Corruptedmorals

That's the perfect solution. It would need to be the exact same- colour etc. or the barcodes won't match and you'd be better off going to a different store so they won't remember you from the last time.

purplecow1977

TheChizler wrote: »

The OP didn't say they were denied a replacement, just a refund.

I would take a replacement - I bought the shoe rack because I wanted it! I will end up having to buy another one elsewhere anyway so they could have just replaced it for me. The two sides do not fit together so one side is lower than the other and therefore won't slip over the top of the door (it would be unbalanced esp when I start hanging shoes on it!)

I will reply to the email and inform them they have just lost a customer. I don't think purchasing another one is viable as they don't have any left as it was a few weeks ago. My only other option would be if I knew someone else who purchased the same one & had their receipt! I won't lose any sleep over it, but like I said, I am disappointed and lesson learned.

Bepolite

TheChizler wrote: »

The OP didn't say they were denied a replacement, just a refund.

I'm not seeing that in the OP.

purplecow1977

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm not seeing that in the OP.

To be fair, I didn't mention replace in the OP but I did in post #8

Del2005

Bepolite wrote: »

Have a search in the legal discussions forum, very good thread on the subject. I'm afraid I can't recall the date. I'll leave the point for you to research, the issue is one of the balance of probabilities of who a registrar believes on the day. The default position will be that the the person purchased the item, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

OWN branding is as much evidence of purchase as remembering the person, a bank statement or a receipt. It is perhaps not as strong or as convenient as a receipt but is evidence nevertheless. A receipt is not fool proof either, and can be rebutted.

Beyond the legal aspects, it's just plain good customer service and best practice in relation to loss prevention. As stated above the store is at very little additional loss by replacing an item with a genuine fault. In fact refusal to do so could make them liable under the Liability For Defective Products Act, 1991, should the item be dangerous. (Sorry reverting back to the legal there). It's a different story if the customer is demanding a refund , of course, but I assumed that went without saying.

EDIT: Thread

Nowhere in the linked thread does it say the retailer has to look through their tills to find a cash purchase several months before hand. All it says is that if you have an own brand product you have other options, which would be the SCC, if you don't have a receipt with the product being damaged. The OP could end up having to take a day off work to get €12 back! Do you get your €25 back if you win?

Bepolite

Del2005 wrote: »

Nowhere in the linked thread does it say the retailer has to look through their tills to find a cash purchase several months before hand. All it says is that if you have an own brand product you have other options, which would be the SCC, if you don't have a receipt with the product being damaged. The OP could end up having to take a day off work to get €12 back! Do you get your €25 back if you win?

You need to extrapolate back. Own brand is, on the balance of probablitities, proof that the product was purchased from that company. You add this to parole evidence given by the purchaser. Given this it means that the retailer needs avail the purchaser of their rights. They can do this by simply doing it, or by carrying out checks to protect themselves, either way the onus is on them to resolve the situation becuase of the evidence of purchase own branded products provides.

As I say this is nuanced and acedemic* so I apoligise if it's rather hard to follow the logic. You are right in tw regards, will it get to this stage for €12.99, no, but I've already stated that. Is there a Must Look Through Reciepts Act 1987, no there isn't either. By the tone of your post you seem to be suggesting that just becuase there is no written rule the retailer should not provide the customer with their rights, you won;t find a bank statement or AFAIK, a reciept as a written rule either.

*as in of little practical application, not implying you're thick.

purplecow1977

Interestingly enough.....

Having read an article on the National Consumer Agency website, it states that ' the shop is entitled to request proof of purchase, but this doesn't necessarily have to be the shop receipt. You could show your credit or debit card statement if you used one or any other documentation that proves it was purchased in that particular shop or retail chain'.

From that statement, I am wondering WHY the box itself is not sufficient as it is a LIDL product. Now, I must admit, it's not the brand that was mentioned earlier. It's 'Ordex'.

This is the culprit!

gowley

thats not a brand exclusive to lidl

purplecow1977

gowley wrote: »

thats not a brand exclusive to lidl

Ah. Therein lies the problem so. Looks like my email querying same is just an embarrassment then