Advertised as ultralight and tough ripstop drybag Neal. 2 everyday multitools in a tough outdoor dry bag doesn’t sound daft. Calling something lightweight doesn’t over ride the items description or purpose. Items need to be described properly or expect unhappy customers. Wow some harsh posts in the thread.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact you’re buying a waterproof bag for storing tools in. Which don’t need to be waterproofed. Weird.

I would chalk it down to experience and buy a more heavy duty bag. They are cheap as chips on ali express. I got a 3l bag for under a fiver, kind of rubbery (not fabric!) material to go in my bag. It is heavy duty, taken my tools/pump/crashes etc for about 2yrs now and been perfect.

Why should all the other customers fund your entitled attitude?

Unless you are a share holder that is a bit of a silly argument. the loss of a customer is probably going to affect this imagined argument more than the cost to Go Outdoors of refunding a single dry bag.

The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.

The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.

This times 1000, they take a disproportionate amount of time and energy; normally for little reward. What is a gesture of goodwill this time, becomes the standard expectation every time after that.

I’m sorry to say OP, that I think your expectations are unrealistic.  I’m not criticising you – but a lightweight and very budget drybag is not going to survive metal tools pressing against it.  Just won’t happen.

It’s also a small amount of £8 you could spend on a discretionary item – so I would write it down to experience and buy something else.  I wasn’t there so can’t comment on the attitude of the shop – but you were not happy with that either, so vote with your wallet and go to a shop where the service is comfortable for you.

Better luck with your next purchase!

The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.

But in this case the customer does not have wildly unrealistic expectations a dry bag described as ‘tough’ did not prove to be that tough.

Heavy metal objects rattling around in a bag are going to cause wear- especially if there is more and one and there are other hard objects for it to bang against  Calling it tough does not remove that fact of life.

Infact sounds like the op needs a Tesco bag for life , they will replace it when your tools wearthrough it.

Man there are some snowflakes around.

Descriptions must be interpreted. You read “ultralight” and “tough” on a low price product and think “oh yeah, those are entirely compatible”?

:Rollseyes:

Call people Snowflakes who don’t agree with you?

Rollseyes:

Tough crowd this morning.

The bag sounds like a piece of crap.

I would expect a refund.

Nope a dry bag is generaly used for soft items you don’t want to get wet, maniac!

But in this case the customer does not have wildly unrealistic expectations a dry bag described as ‘tough’ did not prove to be that tough

Pretty sure it wasn’t designed as a tool bag.  It’s probably perfectly tough enough for keeping underwear etc dry.

Unless you are a share holder that is a bit of a silly argument. the loss of a customer is probably going to affect this imagined argument more than the cost to Go Outdoors of refunding a single dry bag.

So now you are suggesting a large national chain or retailers should have a refund policy that only applies to one customer?

Because earlier it sounded very much like you were suggesting that inexpensive stuff should just be refunded regardless of the circumstances just “because”

which is it ?

Gotta love the armchair warriors.

If the product carried warnings to the tune of not using it for anything metal or only being suitable for clothes then I’d agree, it’s the OPs own fault.  But it didn’t, it said it was to “protect your gear.”  Using it in a manner that the OP had previously used with an older bag seems entirely reasonable to me.

The Consumer Rights Act states that goods have to be fit for purpose and of reasonable quality.  Whether it cost £8, 50p or 50 quid is by the by – it’s demonstrably not fit for purpose, which is to “protect your gear.”  An £8 pouch that died after one use arguably isn’t of reasonable quality either (is it reasonable to expect it to do what a previous similar product did?  Perhaps so.)

In any case, for the sake of eight quid and probably less than half that in terms of what it cost GO to buy in the first place, I’d have thought they’d have exchanged it without quibble simply for the sake of PR / goodwill if nothing else.  It’s probably cost them more than that in staff wages arguing about it.

Is it suitable for camera, phone, watches, car keys, puncture repair kits etc etc? normal things to keep stored in a small tough drybag while camping and cycling. You would have thought the description would say Soft goods only rather than the wildly unrealistic description

refund please

the alpkit one recommends the 1 litre for your ‘valuables’ i don’t think they mean al’s very tight sand filled knickers

Jecca 😁

Cougar what makes you anything than another armchair warrior? Are you<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”> a professonal consumer lawyer? </span>

Fitness for purpose is not just about a description. It does not overide commonsense either. On your basis you could return lots of products with optimistic descriptions. These are just a part of sales.

<div class=”bbcode-quote”>

Unless you are a share holder that is a bit of a silly argument. the loss of a customer is probably going to affect this imagined argument more than the cost to Go Outdoors of refunding <strong class=”bbcode-strong”>a single dry bag.

</div>
So now you are suggesting a large national chain or retailers should have a refund policy that only applies to one customer?

Because earlier it sounded very much like you were suggesting that inexpensive stuff should just be refunded regardless of the circumstances just “because”

which is it ?

I think you are clutching at staws a bit. The reason i used the word single is because form reading the OP original post i deduced that she had only brought one dry bag from go outdoors.

“If the product carried warnings to the tune of not using it for anything metal or only being suitable for clothes then I’d agree, it’s the OPs own fault”

Excellent At no time when I bought my new car was I told it was incompatible with a wall. Now it’s a write off . Perhaps I will return it under your professional consumer advice.

Cougar what makes you anything than another armchair warrior? Are you a professonal consumer lawyer?

Of course not. I do however know a bit about consumer rights and that’s what I’m referring to, rather than just lining up to stick the boot in for the lulz.

Fitness for purpose is not just about a description. It does not overide commonsense either. On your basis you could return lots of products with optimistic descriptions.

Leaving aside the third part of the CRA’s requirements which is “as described,”

Fit for purpose means that a product should be up to the job it’s sold (not bought) for.  This includes any descriptions offered by the retailer (or at least, it did under SoGA, I’ve not checked the CRA but assume it’s still the same).

So, if you needed to fill some cracks in a wall and bought a tube of toothpaste, then “fit for purpose” doesn’t apply (because you’re an idiot).  However, if you went to a store, asked for wall sealant and was sold toothpaste, it is absolutely not fit for purpose.

Excellent At no time when I bought my new car was I told it was incompatible with a wall.

Is it reasonable to assume that a bag sold to “protect your gear” will, in fact, protect your gear?  Yes.

Is it reasonable to assume that your new car would be compatible with walls?  No.

More like using a car to transport a demolished wall to the tip, then complaining the interior got scuffed up. Maybe putting the bricks into containers or using a van would have been a better choice.

More like using a car sold as being suitable for carrying bricks to transport a demolished wall to the tip, then complaining the interior got scuffed up.

FTFY.

The crux of this, really, is how you define “gear.”

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>Cougar
<div class=”bbp-author-role”></div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

just lining up to stick the boot in for the lulz.

</div>

It looks like that’s just how you describe those who have a differing view here? You’e not the only one with some knowledge.

To use your own analogy, if OP had gone to the till and asked “Will this ultralight bag be OK with bare metal tools rubbing on the fabric will that be OK?” he should have been answered “no” (he might not have, given what price-driven retail does to staff quality and training), and if it were me I’d have advised him about the blatant incompatability of “tough”, “ultralight” and the price tag, and suggested a more nuanced view was required.

Anyone taking a literal view of adjectives (rather than specifications) printed on packaging are in for a lot of disappointment, and is in my view naive

It looks like that’s just how you describe those who have a differing view here?

A few choice “differing views” from earlier, totally not sticking the boot in:

“Furthermore if my common sense wasn’t up to figuring out unprotected metal objects would rub holes in said lightweight material, I wouldn’t be admitting it on a public forum.”

“My wife had a pair of stockings that were guaranteed not to get ladders in then . Well I used one of them to carry my chefs knives in and the tight wads won’t give me a refund . Suitably outraged .”

“Honestly OP sort yourself out mate !!!”

“Might be worth a quick letter to your MP.”

“Everything that is wrong with attitudes towards retail in one sentence.FML”

“Have a word with yourself, chap”

“You are part of the problem OP.

Too entitled for your own good IMO.”

“The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.”

“Man there are some snowflakes around.”

TL;DR, you can disagree with someone without being a bellend about it in the process.  I often wonder where some folk sitting there bashing away at their keyboards would talk to a complete stranger in the same way face-to-face.

I think you are clutching at staws

So which is it then ?

Just this one customer that should be refunded regardless of fault.

Or do all customers who break cheap stuff get refunds ?

Are you here for five minutes or the full half hour?

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>Cougar
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

Are you here for five minutes or the full half hour?

</div>

IRONY!

Yeah, I knew that was coming.  Bite me.

(-:

😀

OP – you previously had a product that was fit for purpose and survived the intended use. Why did it need replacing other than age? Wear? Did you buy the replacement online or in store? When you first handled it did it feel as a robust and durable as the one it was to replace? Did you personally apply a reasoned judgement as to the suitability from what you had seen, felt and handled prior to use or did you rely purely on your interpretation of the words on the packaging? You were not going into this blind – you should have been able to appraise suitability for yourself.

Are you here for five minutes or the full half hour

Mine is a perfectly reasonable question, given that earlier he said that retailers should just stump up refunds for damaged goods regardless of who was at fault.

Do you agree with him?

……or are you just having a dig at me because you want an argument ?

So which is it then ?

Just this one customer that should be refunded regardless of fault.

Or do all customers who break cheap stuff get refunds ?

I think it makes more sense to refund/exchange/offer credit for low cost items than it does to be rude and alienate a customer.

I think it makes more sense to refund/exchange/offer credit for low cost items than it does to be rude and alienate a customer.

I think it makes more sense to do neither of those things.

Refund if refund is due. Don’t if it’s not.

Dont be rude to anyone (but this can be easily achieved without refunding people who aren’t entitled to a refund)

than it does to be rude and alienate a customer.

We only have one side of the conversation to judge if the store staff were actually rude. They did not give the customer the answer they were after. This is a customer who is reactionary enough to make a thread about it and who has potentially marginal value judgment making ability. I’m not taking the rude for granted. And in any case as someone above said, some customers you are best off without. No idea if this one is, but it could be a possibility.

I would say you mis-bought rather than were mis-sold.

Yeah.  I can’t see how you can argue against that really, without being a pedantic dick about it :-).

OP, I would just chalk it down to experience.

Mine is a perfectly reasonable question, given that earlier he said that retailers should just stump up refunds for damaged goods regardless of who was at fault.

Thats not exactly what i said you have missed out (entirely by accident I imagine) the bit where I said low cost, inadvertently making my point look a bit ridiculous.

Whether you are unreasonable or not, it’s an 8 quid bag… Barely worth your time going into the shop to complain.

Thats not exactly what i said you have missed out (entirely by accident I imagine) the bit where I said low cost, inadvertently making my point look a bit ridiculous.

So, anything less than what ? £15 maybe

£10?

Entitled to a refund regardless of fault?.

 (but this can be easily achieved without refunding people who aren’t entitled to a refund)

(yeah but she was)