Faulty boots - no reciept

ncmc

Hi all, just wondering where I stand with a pair of boots I bought in Marks & Spencer. I bought them at the start of October and paid cash so no credit card trail. They were fine at first and I was very happy with them so I didn’t keep the reciept. However in the last couple of days I noticed that they are significantly leaking in two places. I’m
very disappointed as they weren’t cheap and I would have expected M&S to be decent quality. Is it worth bringing them back with no receipt or proof
Of purchase or will I be told to jog on?

theteal

No proof of purchase. They could be stolen for all the shop know. I think you’d be wasting your time tbh.

Also, as regards M&S quality, I’m not sure it exists anymore, I’ve had a few issues in the last 6 months

ncmc

I’ve just checked back my card statement. I paid with a combination of part exchange and debit card so I do have a transaction for M&S for that date, but it’s for only a portion of the value of the boots. I’m presuming that wouldn’t help my case at all?

_Brian

Consumer protection you don’t need a receipt for faulty goods, proof of purchase would be useful.

https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/shopping/faulty-goods/

dudara

ncmc wrote: »

I’ve just checked back my card statement. I paid with a combination of part exchange and debit card so I do have a transaction for M&S for that date, but it’s for only a portion of the value of the boots. I’m presuming that wouldn’t help my case at all?

That will help and should be sufficient. Also, I assume that they are own brand M&S boots?

Go into M&S and lay out your complaint. I do find them generally excellent when it comes to customer service, so hopefully you'll get a good outcome.

ncmc

Yes they are M&S brand boots and they are still on sale for the price I paid. I even have pics of me trying them on that day that I whatsapped to my husband to get his opinion if that counted as proof 😂😂😂

njs030

_Brian wrote: »

Consumer protection you don’t need a receipt for faulty goods, proof of purchase would be useful.

https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/shopping/faulty-goods/

You need proof of purchase.
You don't have to have a receipt as proof of purchase can be a credit or debit card statement too but you do have to have something.

If your statement shows a partial payment there that day it should be enough for proof of purchase op.

ncmc

Have to say big kudos to M&S for customer service. Brought the boots back and started into my spiel, barely let me finish before apologising and offering a refund. I presumed it would be on a gift card, but no, cash refund into in my paw! Fair play to them, delighted with how easy it was.

Samuel T. Cogley

notjustsweet wrote: »

You need proof of purchase.
You don't have to have a receipt as proof of purchase can be a credit or debit card statement too but you do have to have something.

If your statement shows a partial payment there that day it should be enough for proof of purchase op.

Own brand goods have been found to be proof enough in certain circumstances. The alternative is to suggest the items are stolen which is likely defamatory and anyone getting that reply from a shop would do well (financially at least) to contact a solicitor.

Now that's not to say a refund should be forthcoming (an exchange/repair is fine), or that retailers can't argue such things as we don't know when they were purchased etc. for identifying age of the product but other facts may be informative there like fashion seasons, photos of the item on a certain date etc.

It's not as clear cut as people suggest, it's a give and take and fair play to M&S for not only following consumer law but setting an example and going beyond it.

njs030

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Own brand goods have been found to be proof enough in certain circumstances. The alternative is to suggest the items are stolen which is likely defamatory and anyone getting that reply from a shop would do well (financially at least) to contact a solicitor.

Now that's not to say a refund should be forthcoming (an exchange/repair is fine), or that retailers can't argue such things as we don't know when they were purchased etc. for identifying age of the product but other facts may be informative there like fashion seasons, photos of the item on a certain date etc.

It's not as clear cut as people suggest, it's a give and take and fair play to M&S for not only following consumer law but setting an example and going beyond it.

If you read the post I responded to and actually quoted the poster claimed you don't need a receipt for faulty goods and a proof of purchase is 'helpful'.
Posts like that confuse people and make them think consumer law says something it doesn't.

I didn't mention own brand at all so please don't imply I did.

Going to a solicitor over a €30-€40 pair of shoes and a verbal conversation that couldn't be proven would be an absolute joke and no decent solicitor would take the case.

Samuel T. Cogley

notjustsweet wrote: »

If you read the post I responded to and actually quoted the poster claimed you don't need a receipt for faulty goods and a proof of purchase is 'helpful'.
Posts like that confuse people and make them think consumer law says something it doesn't.

Well you've certianly confused me old chap.

notjustsweet wrote: »

I didn't mention own brand at all so please don't imply I did.

No I did

notjustsweet wrote: »

Going to a solicitor over a €30-€40 pair of shoes and a verbal conversation that couldn't be proven would be an absolute joke and no decent solicitor would take the case.

I was referring to the old chestnut of 'they could be stolen' being defamatory. Given a recent case if I was still working in retail I wouldn't be saying it.

MOH

ncmc wrote: »

Have to say big kudos to M&S for customer service. Brought the boots back and started into my spiel, barely let me finish before apologising and offering a refund. I presumed it would be on a gift card, but no, cash refund into in my paw! Fair play to them, delighted with how easy it was.

Wow, that's a huge difference from my experience last year. Bought a pair of shoes that pretty much fell apart in 7 weeks. Brought them in (with receipt) and the in-store manager didn't want to know, insisted it was due to wear. Eventually she said she'd send them back to the UK, who immediately apologised for the terrible quality and sent me a full refund - via a sterling gift card, for the UK price of the shoes, which was about 30% less than the Irish price. Took about 2 months to eventually get the correct amount refunded.

Not only would I never buy footwear there again, but I found the in-store customer service so awful I haven't bought anything there since, when it would previously have been somewhere I'd shop quite often. Mainly out of a misguided notion about decent quality and customer service

grogi

ncmc wrote: »

Is it worth bringing them back with no receipt /.../

No. And never pay with cash for items like that...

ncmc wrote: »

Have to say big kudos to M&S for customer service. Brought the boots back and started into my spiel, barely let me finish before apologising and offering a refund. I presumed it would be on a gift card, but no, cash refund into in my paw! Fair play to them, delighted with how easy it was.

I wouldn't refund you. But that's probably why I don't run an international retail chain

grogi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I was referring to the old chestnut of 'they could be stolen' being defamatory. Given a recent case if I was still working in retail I wouldn't be saying it.

Nobody would say it. It is standard to say 'it is company policy that we don't exchange items without proof of purchase'.

Samuel T. Cogley

grogi wrote: »

Nobody would say it. It is standard to say 'it is company policy that we don't exchange items without proof of purchase'.

The customer has proof of purchase, own brand goods. That's the point being made that frequently gets missed in this forum. You're conflating absolute proof of purchase with the preponderance of evidence of purchase, which is all that's required.

The point in this thread is that M&S know that and were great in this instance many aren't as good and are frequently defended with ' they could be stolen'. That's simply no excuse.

Incidentally I've heard it on numerous occasions as a retailer and a customer.

MOH

grogi wrote: »

No. And never pay with cash for items like that...

That makes no sense. There's absolutely no reason not to pay with cash.

njs030

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The customer has proof of purchase, own brand goods. That's the point being made that frequently gets missed in this forum. You're conflating absolute proof of purchase with the preponderance of evidence of purchase, which is all that's required.

The point in this thread is that M&S know that and were great in this instance many aren't as good and are frequently defended with ' they could be stolen'. That's simply no excuse.

Incidentally I've heard it on numerous occasions as a retailer and a customer.

A retailer is entitled to ask for proof of purchase in the form of a receipt or credit card/bank statement.
That's the law, own brand goods are not proof of purchase.

Samuel T. Cogley

notjustsweet wrote: »

A retailer is entitled to ask for proof of purchase in the form of a receipt or credit card/bank statement.
That's the law, own brand goods are not proof of purchase.

Please link that piece of legislation I'd be delighted to be corrected. AFAIK it's all case law based.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They can refuse on those grounds, I've never once in almost twenty years of retail ever heard of a retailer doing so. Again own brand goods mean's the customer has more evidence than the shop, it would be for the shop to refute existence of the contract, they can't just say it could be X or Y they have to produce evidence.

Incidentally, a receipt does not prove the contract, only that payment was made. To do that conclusively they'd have to ID the person at POS and at return. That could be done by Card etc.

njs030

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Please link that piece of legislation I'd be delighted to be corrected. AFAIK it's all case law based.

As you're the person claiming own brand goods are proof of purchase please link where it says that.

Samuel T. Cogley

notjustsweet wrote: »

As you're the person claiming own brand goods are proof of purchase please link where it says that.

Now how did I know you'd answer the question with a question? Uncanny.

As I've said it's based on case law and the basic principles of the civil standard of proof. I.E. one side just needs 1% more proof than the other. I'm fully willing to admit I've not got the case law to hand. However basic principles still apply. Have you anything to back up your assertions because as far as I know there has never been an exhaustive list of evidence of purchases. As I say I'm always willing to be corrected.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

I'll leave it there, it's not the first time we've had this discussion. As the OP said Kudos to M&S whether they legally had to do something or not.

njs030

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Now how did I know you'd answer the question with a question? Uncanny.

As I've said it's based on case law and the basic principles of the civil standard of proof. I.E. one side just needs 1% more proof than the other. I'm fully willing to admit I've not got the case law to hand. However basic principles still apply. Have you anything to back up your assertions because as far as I know there has never been an exhaustive list of evidence of purchases. As I say I'm always willing to be corrected.

???
It's impossible to prove a negative.
You made the claim that own brand products are proof of purchase. Please provide a link.
I've had this conversation with you before and as always you back out because it isn't true.

Waffling on about case law is irrelevant. Consumer regulation is the only relevant law here.

grogi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Please link that piece of legislation I'd be delighted to be corrected. AFAIK it's all case law based.

For instance
- the retailer need to verify if the purchase is within time-frame defined by consumer law.
- the retailer need to verify if the purchase was done in Ireland. Own brands might be sold by multiple outlets around the world (in case of M&S it is UK) and in such case the retailer here will have no responsibility.
- the chain might be organised as a franchise, an one outlet has no responsibility over goods sold by another outlet
- etc.

The onus of proving the retailer has responsibility is on the buyer. The retailer, as in this case, might decide it is in their interest to keep a customer satisfied - but they don't have to.

JimsAlterEgo

sometimes a product is only stocked in a specific timeframe, I must say for a large purchase if refuses I would let the SCC decide if own brand was sufficient.

CeilingFly

Are the boots faulty?

OP just says they are leaking. I dont think M&S sell waterproof shoes.

So it really depends on whether its a real fault with the manufacture of the shoes or that a little water got in on a wet day.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

CeilingFly wrote: »

Are the boots faulty?

OP just says they are leaking. I dont think M&S sell waterproof shoes.

So it really depends on whether its a real fault with the manufacture of the shoes or that a little water got in on a wet day.

The store accepted they were faulty. Boots should not leak.

ncmc

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She actually 😜 and yes, they were definitely ffaullty. The sole was extremely worn with holes in places and a big hole in one heel. They lady in M&S took one look at them and offered a refund, there’s no way this could be argued as natural wear. They are current stock, so they could only have been purchased in the last few months.