[Closed] Can shops deny you a refund ?

Google sale of goods act.

Its very clear and simple - damaged goods - repair, replace, refund buyers choice.

So yes - if the goods are supplied damaged then you can insist on a refund

how has it broken, how long ago was it bought? if i bought a mirror and dropped it and it broke would it be the shops fault?

Hence the question.

It was a Christmas present - wrapped up while still in original packaging - opened to find damage. (its a clock of sorts for my mates mum) he tried to take it back y/day,

Was it damaged when bought?

If they are willing to replace the item but can't as its out of stock, they have pretty much agreed that they are liable to refund.

If you've got a receipt, you're definitely entitled to a refund (as long as the shop can't prove that the item was damaged through misuse). If you've not got a receipt it gets trickier - you'll need a bank statement/card statement. Think if you've paid cash you'll have to fight a bit more.

I'm not sure, but I know when I worked in retail you could only give refunds in the way they'd been paid for, ie if it had been paid by card, you had to refund it back onto the original card, if it was cash it was a cash refund, if it was vouchers, the refund was in vouchers, etc.

TandemJeremy - Member

Google sale of goods act.

Its very clear and simple - damaged goods - repair, replace, refund buyers choice.

So yes - if the goods are supplied damaged then you can insist on a refund

We've done this before, but here goes. If the customer was able to inspect the goods before paying and chose not to or didn't see the damage, but was given the opportunity, then no, there is no right to a refund.

If the goods were not as described, or not fit for purchase, then yes.

Damaged goods protection would, I think, only be of use for goods bought by post where you don't have the opportunity to inspect them. There are, again I think as I don't have access to my books, caveats which exclude packaged goods , basically saying that you have an opportunity to inspect.

Any repayment should be made in the same way as the goods were paid for.

I am not sure how it was paid for but will pass the advice - especially google the Sale of Goods Act to my mate - he is just peeved more by the shop staffs stance than the clock actually being damaged/broken now!

pop back today while they're really busy. Be firm but polite and don't take no for an answer. They'll not want you stood at the till all day discussing the issue while they've got people to serve.

Just a thought...it's probably worth ringing the shop in question and asking to speak to the manager before you go in shouting the odds. Alternatively try ringing the company's customer services department.

Oh...and shop staff are people too. Talk to them like they're arseholes and they'll behave like arseholes, talk to them as though they are reasonable human beings and they are far more likely to respond like reasonable human beings.

We've done this before, but here goes. If the customer was able to inspect the goods before paying and chose not to or didn't see the damage, but was given the opportunity, then no, there is no right to a refund.

Nope - thats not in the law

Any repayment should be made in the same way as the goods were paid for.

Nor is this.

Its an absolute right - if the shop supplies damaged goods then you have a right to refund / repair / replace your choice.

No quibbling about inspecting at the time or anything else.

Refund is in whatever form you want it.

Consumer direct is a good source of info.
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

Ignore what TJ says as usual he only takes the part of retail law he wants to hear and spouts it, basically there is another very inportant proviso re return/ refund, in tha a refund is statutory if returned within a reasonable time scale (assumed to be 28 days in law but never acually tested by litigation). If its less than 28 days then yes he is entitled to a refund if he had no opportunnity to inspect the goods, if more than the 28 days then the shop has the right to repair or replace (also withing a reasonable tome scale, also assumed to be the same 28 days.....this can be varied though dependant on the type of product) if a repair or replacement isn't available then a refund then becomes statutory.

there was actually a thead with links from martin lewis regarding this a couple of weeks ago, TJ obv doesn't remember the timescale part of those links which i have told him about on previous occaisions, but he still ignoires

The hustler - thats a load of rubbish. Really - go have a look at the law.

Please find the bits in the law or guidance that says any of what you claim. There is no 28 day limit - timings are "reasonable" and will depend on what the product is and the circumstances are

The shop does not have the choice to repair or repair if they want. All choice is with the buyer.

Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?

No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html#Q2DoIonlyhaverightsfor30orsomeotherfiguredaysafterpurchase

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

take a look at the link cant be arsed with your rubbish as usual

The hustler - you do know That my partner who is sitting alongside me made her living for many years out of applying this law.

Where is your expertise from?

I prefer teh quote from a government site that clearly states no time limits.

also read my post the 28 days is assumed and as said not tested by litigation thats why you wont find it in law I SAID THIS IN MY ORIGINAL POST

The law around this is really rather simple, and Tj seems to have got it right.

Shops, manufacturers will do many things they shouldn't do, or do not have to do, or are not allowed to do, if if it feels wrong and you are not happy, contact your local trading standards for advice. Its their job, they will be happy to help.

my expertise comes from having worked in retail as a manager and owner of companies for 25 years, and therefore needing to know these laws

How can you have something assumed that is not either in case law or statute?
🙄

Thank you steve -

also are you saying your partner knows the law beter than the martin lewis people?

there are many things assumed in law as you well know...in your own supposed field of expertise, ever heard of a contract by implication?

I noticed in Debenhams yesterday, that they were refusing refunds from 26-28th Dec because of the "greatest sale ever", sounded totally unlawful.

the hustler - Member

also are you saying your partner knows the law beter than the martin lewis people?

Clearly as does Steve Austin if they believe in this mythical 28 day limit that does not appear in stature or case law 🙂

tj change your glasses at no point have i said it is written in law, what i said was that the law states a "reasonable timescale" which by most areas of law regarding refunds is assumed to be 28 days although this has never been tested by litigation

the reason for "reasonable timescale" is because "reasonable" can vary between different products

Indeed. Reasonable is the key

28 days is meaningless.

Teh retailer never has the choice as you claim, they do not have 28days to repair, its just a load of cobblers.

I would argue that reasonable for the life of a product, and the reasonable time for that product to be returned would the expected life of that product.
So reasonable timescale would vary, and there are lots of other factors to take into account. but its a minor point

TJ, Don't bring repair into this can o worms as that'll only complicate the matter!!!

It sounds like the main issue here may be evidential - can the OP prove that, more likely than not, the item was damaged when it left the shop? It sounds like there was a delay between buying the item and opening it to spot the damage. Can the OP prove that this wasn't when the damage occurred?

😆

My mate was turned away from debenhams today for a refund, so is this legal?

???

Parents bought acoat 4 days ago

He went in to return and refund, they advised he should return when they weree accepting refunds....

Wtf?

Can u pick ehich areas of your business are open?

grey area,

timdrayton - they don't have to refund a recipient of a gift. After all, he/she did not buy it. His/her parents did therefore the contract is between them.

You do on occassion have people trying this to get the money rather than the goods, i.e. they are skint.
Plus, there is a chance of money laundering being conducted...
1. Person buys with cash
2. Another person takes back and requests a credit on their debit card/credit card.

Debenhems will refund, just not at the moment. its because they can't staff sales, and someone to refund. Its common practice in big dept stores.
Nothing to worry about, big stores really do not care about refunding and mostly work well within the law

Also, Debenhams want their "greatest sale ever" to look good on the books and refunds don't help.

If you were returning this because the purchase broke the contract under the SOGA and you were entitled to a refund, then yes this is possibly illegal. You could claim for cost of travelling to the store twice.

The problem is Debenhams and other clothes stores offer terms that benefit the consumer in addition to their statutory rights, which is what you are using to request a refund. So in effect they can do what they want, by adjusting those additional terms.

The grey area is whether Debenhams made the original purchaser aware of this and they bought on the understanding that your friend could return it for a refund whenever.