Refused refund from Xtravision

LFC Murphy

Hi,

Got a kids dvd yesterday, was scratched and could watch it, so the kid went back and was given a replacement. 10 minutes after starting to watch it I was called because it was skipping again. I took the disc out and it was badly scratched.

I went to the shop myself and asked for a refund but was told that they dont offer refunds , only store credit. I asked for the manager, not there at the time. I took the disc back as proof.

However my question is, I'm right to assume, under the terms of the "Sale of good, and supply of services Act" that I'm entitled to a replace, repair, refund.

I'm gonna go back tomorrow.

Thanks

efb

yes, not fit for purpose

Mr. Incognito

Sale of Goods and supply of services act 1982 as amended 1998:

Goods sold or rented must be:

Fit for the purposes intended
As described
Conform to sample and
of Merchantable quality

Learned that off years ago

Bring back the receipt. If it's a used CD and marked as such (i.e ex rental sales) you probably have no comeback though.

jor el

SetantaL wrote: »

If it's a used CD and marked as such (i.e ex rental sales) you probably have no comeback though.

Not so. If a business sells an item, it must be of merchantable quality and suitable for it's intended purpose. A scratched disc, that won't play, is neither of these things. Even if it's marked as ex-rental, doesn't mean you get nothing, it just means you're not entitled to a brand new one as replacement. If they have another ex-rental, that would do, otherwise a refund is in order.

LFC Murphy

Thought so......... thanks

omb0wyn5ehpij9

jor el wrote: »

Not so. If a business sells an item, it must be of merchantable quality and suitable for it's intended purpose. A scratched disc, that won't play, is neither of these things. Even if it's marked as ex-rental, doesn't mean you get nothing, it just means you're not entitled to a brand new one as replacement. If they have another ex-rental, that would do, otherwise a refund is in order.

+1, spot on

viv2

I dont think you get to choose which of the 3 r's (replace,refund,repair) you get.Its the store that choose and if they offered a replacement they have done all they have to do.

Kensington

Why not take the replacement and before you leave the store, check it is in perfect condition? It would be very odd that two (and most certainly three) of the same discs would be scratched (other than by a mechanical fault in your player).

Sam Vimes

it might end up with you compensating them for damaging their discs with your dodgy player

but as people have said, they're within their rights to offer a replacement in this case

afaik it's illegal to say they don't do refunds though. I don't mean you're entitled to one here, just saying i don't think they're allowed never give them

javaboy

viv2 wrote: »

I dont think you get to choose which of the 3 r's (replace,refund,repair) you get.Its the store that choose and if they offered a replacement they have done all they have to do.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but as people have said, they're within their rights to offer a replacement in this case

But if you're renting a DVD, you presumably want to watch it that night right? And if it's a children's DVD, you don't want to have them up all night watching it. So if you have had to make two extra trips to Xtravision to return it, then you've lost a good chunk of valuable time.

The way I'd look at it is you paid to rent a movie from a certain time. They failed to provide that service. They then provided you with a replacement which is also not working. Essentially they can't provide you with what you originally paid for i.e. rental from time X until the designated return time because they've wasted your time so you should really get a refund.

I doubt much of my rambling would have any legal standing but it would be unwise for them not to refund you in this case imo.

viv2

javaboy wrote: »

But if you're renting a DVD, you presumably want to watch it that night right? And if it's a children's DVD, you don't want to have them up all night watching it. So if you have had to make two extra trips to Xtravision to return it, then you've lost a good chunk of valuable time.

I thought he bought a dvd?

Gillo

viv2 wrote: »

I thought he bought a dvd?

No the OP said that he got a DVD, I assumed he rented it, either way considering the replacement which he got was also faulty (assuming it's not his DVD player) I'd expect him to get a refund although unfortunately it's then choice of xtra-vision.

LFC Murphy

I rented the dvd.

the_syco

Kensington wrote: »

Why not take the replacement and before you leave the store, check it is in perfect condition? It would be very odd that two (and most certainly three) of the same discs would be scratched (other than by a mechanical fault in your player).

Agreed. Sounds like the OPs player may be at fault.

LFC Murphy

Our DVD players is not at fault............ The quality of the product/service provided by the company is the issue.

Gillo

So it will play all other DVD's perfectly?

Kensington

LFC Murphy wrote: »

I rented the dvd.

I assumed you bought the DVD, apologies. In this case, it's probably up to xtravision what form of recourse they give, as it's going to be your word against theirs as to how two of the same DVDs were rendered unplayable due to scratches - may well be easier to take a credit to your account and use it in the future.

FWIW, I always check rental discs before I even leave the counter of the store. That way, it removes any chance of blame being placed on yourself should you find the discs scratched when you go to play them...

javaboy

Kensington wrote: »

FWIW, I always check rental discs before I even leave the counter of the store. That way, it removes any chance of blame being placed on yourself should you find the discs scratched when you go to play them...

Funnily enough, I never used to do this. The other day I brought back Forgetting Sarah Marshall and rented two new DVDs. I don't know why because I never normally do it but I decided to check the discs and lo and behold there was Sarah Marshall where Vantage Point should have been.

I went back in and explained it so the guy says "oops. Sorry" and hands me back the Vantage Point box with a different copy of Forgetting Sarah Marshall in it. :rolleyes:

Now I check them every time.

axer

OP you have the right to ask for a refund. You were reasonable in that you gave the store a chance to rectify the problem but they did not do so properly. Of course the store can still say no at which point you would have to take it further i.e. small claims court in order to get your refund.

TerrorFirmer

Went into Xtra Vision in Oranmore once and they refused to give me either a refund or even another movie when the one I rented was scratched so badly it wouldn't play - total ****. OK store in general but an ape from the jungle would be a better worker then some of their staff. One in particular.

Kensington

axer wrote: »

at which point you would have to take it further i.e. small claims court in order to get your refund.

€15 to the SCC for a ~€5 refund? Right...

axer

Kensington wrote: »

€15 to the SCC for a ~€5 refund? Right...

Exactly my point i.e. just because the OP have the right to a refund doesnt mean that the store cannot say no after that the only option for the OP is the small claims court to enforce those rights which will work out more expensive.

Gillo

Kensington wrote: »

€15 to the SCC for a ~€5 refund? Right...

Ah but it's the principle of it don't you listen to Joe Duffy.

SoupyNorman

I believe the main reason for the mass frustration that XV causes customers over issues that can be very easily resolved is the fact that managers in 90% of stores dont work past 6pm or weekends.

Staff are instructed that they cant...(among other things)

Refund Cash
Accept ANY issue related to phones
Deal with Console exchanges/repairs

...without a manager/ senior sales rep present.

This more or less gives staff leave to basically shrug their shoulders when fairly calm customers enter and leave with steam geyser-ing from their ears.

However, there is many an employee in XV (and other establishments) who just want to be horses asses for no other reason that they are just jerks (*stop that Mr Simpson*). In all my 3years in XV I dont think I ever had a customer returning a damaged rental and not accepting a replacement or a rental credited to their account.


My view on the matter, which I conveyed to customers was that we've 3000+ DVD's for rental and it's an impossible task to ensure they were fault free. There is a pretty basic system where a disc has a two complaints and its out rule but it involves paperwork and most employees dont do it. Also DVD's by design are not suited to the rental market in terms of durability and ESPECIALLY the kids DVD's, the state of some DVD's that came back was hilarious, covered in Jam, Muck, and one that came back covered in Cement!


Hopefully I've conveyed empathy here and defended XV a little as the thread has Given XV a little bit of a raw deal (especially over the confusion over whether it was a rental or Retail)


All I can say to the OP is take your rental credit, its perfectly fair (if you dont think so ask for 2 credits for the inconvenience), or save yourself the stress and just dont use the service.

PeteK*

Sam Vimes wrote: »

afaik it's illegal to say they don't do refunds though. I don't mean you're entitled to one here, just saying i don't think they're allowed never give them

Is that the case with items on Sale?

''No Refund On Sale Items'' ( Or returns or something )

I remember reading on our Business Studies book at school that they can not say that.

oleras

bravestarr082 wrote: »

........ and ESPECIALLY the kids DVD's, the state of some DVD's that came back was hilarious, covered in Jam, Muck, and one that came back covered in Cement!

Was it "Bob the Builder" by any chance.........? :pac:

Oh , almost forgot.....look to speak to a manager the next time OP.

Kensington

Chatmaster wrote: »

Is that the case with items on Sale?

''No Refund On Sale Items'' ( Or returns or something )

I remember reading on our Business Studies book at school that they can not say that.

ANY sign stating "No Refunds" is illegal unless it also has "This does not affect your statuatory rights" included somewhere on that sign.

PeteK*

Kensington wrote: »

ANY sign stating "No Refunds" is illegal unless it also has "This does not affect your statuatory rights" included somewhere on that sign.

What exactly does that mean?

It doesn't affect those rights?

Doctor DooM

Chatmaster wrote: »

What exactly does that mean?

It doesn't affect those rights?

Your stuatory rights on an item sold at retail include the right to request a remedy (return, refund or exchange) on an item which is not of merchantable quality or as described within a reasonable period of time.

If you think some of those terms are rather nebulous, yes they are.

Kensington

Chatmaster wrote: »

What exactly does that mean?

It doesn't affect those rights?

It means your rights to a refund, when you are entitled to one, aren't affected under the Sale Of Goods and Supply Of Services Act 1980. A shop can't say No Refunds - end of, because a customer may be entitled, by Law, to a Refund due to a faulty product. A lot of shops do place up "No Refund" signs though because what many people don't seem to realise is that if you've simply changed your mind about a product, or you went out and bought the wrong thing, you don't have any rights whatsoever under the SOG&SOS act for a refund (or anything, for that matter). Likewise, if you buy Ex-Display items or B Grade stock and any defects, damage etc. has been pointed out to you at time of sale, you're not entitled to a refund either.

PeteK*

SDooM wrote: »

Your stuatory rights on an item sold at retail include the right to request a remedy (return, refund or exchange) on an item which is not of merchantable quality or as described within a reasonable period of time.

If you think some of those terms are rather nebulous, yes they are.

Lol so the sign says: No returns and under it says: This does not affect your statuatory rights


And for people who understand it, it reads:

No Returns
Ignore the above :pac:

Kensington wrote: »

Likewise, if you buy Ex-Display items or B Grade stock and any defects, damage etc. has been pointed out to you at time of sale, you're not entitled to a refund either.

But obviously you have to be told it's Ex-Display or B Grade? I only ever saw B-Grade on Maplins website.

axer

Chatmaster wrote: »

Lol so the sign says: No returns and under it says: This does not affect your statuatory rights


And for people who understand it, it reads:

No Returns
Ignore the above :pac:

The no returns bit can mean if your statutory rights are not affected then you cannot return the item e.g. if you realise you don't like the colour etc. thus the sign would be entirely legal.

Chatmaster wrote: »

But obviously you have to be told it's Ex-Display or B Grade? I only ever saw B-Grade on Maplins website.

If you are told that the goods are seconds or that there is x flaw with them then you may not have the right to rememdy if something goes wrong. It all depends on what you were told.

consultech

This issue barely even needs discussion - You have every right to demand a full refund as the good/service you paid for isn't fit for it's intended purpose...

What is of more note is retailers who refuse to acknowledge the relevant piece of consumer-protective legislation, either by ignorance or intended law-breaking;

I had a similar situation with Xtra-vision after buying guitar hero 3. Guitar didn't work with playstation and I brought it back, fully open to a replacement. That was the last in stock apparently and when I asked for a refund I was told they can't give me one coz it's "store policy" and a "manager's signature" is needed. Low and behold there was no manager there, because they go home at half 5/don't work weekends. I am a full time working professional (who plays guitar hero ) and there wasn't a hope of me gettin near the shop by 5:30.

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

Sam Vimes

consultech wrote: »

This issue barely even needs discussion - You have every right to demand a full refund as the good/service you paid for isn't fit for it's intended purpose...

refund, repair or replacement at the retailers discretion is what it says in the sale of goods and services act

consultech wrote: »

What is of more note is retailers who refuse to acknowledge the relevant piece of consumer-protective legislation, either by ignorance or intended law-breaking;

I had a similar situation with Xtra-vision after buying guitar hero 3. Guitar didn't work with playstation and I brought it back, fully open to a replacement. That was the last in stock apparently and when I asked for a refund I was told they can't give me one coz it's "store policy" and a "manager's signature" is needed. Low and behold there was no manager there, because they go home at half 5/don't work weekends. I am a full time working professional (who plays guitar hero ) and there wasn't a hope of me gettin near the shop by 5:30.

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

so you threatened to sue a girl working a minimum wage job for doing as her manager had told her. Good man, you should be proud of yourself. I know that when i worked in such jobs i was just lying whenever i said i wasn't allowed to do what a customer asked and as soon as they threatened me i was suddenly allowed to help them without getting sacked

leeroybrown

Sam Vimes wrote: »

refund, repair or replacement at the retailers discretion is what it says in the sale of goods and services act

If the consumer is unhappy with the option offered they have the right to request an alternative. In consultech's case repair was not a reasonable option due to the age of the product and the store proved unable to provide the preferred option of replacement. Refund became the only option available.

Kensington

consultech wrote: »

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

Wow, must make you feel so good. Threatening some poor sod who doesn't make any of the policies of the store, has no say whatsoever as to when a refund can/cannot be processed, probably has no authority to issue a refund if/when the situation arrises and would probably be issued a written warning should she override policy just to give you what you want. Well done sir.

Sam Vimes

leeroybrown wrote: »

If the consumer is unhappy with the option offered they have the right to request an alternative. In consultech's case repair was not a reasonable option due to the age of the product and the store proved unable to provide the preferred option of replacement. Refund became the only option available.

i realise that. What he said is that the op is entitled to a full refund as the good is not fit for its intended purpose. That's not the reason he's entitled, the reasons are as detailed above, ie a replacement has been attempted and a repair doesn't apply to this situation

KTRIC

I had the same problem with Xtra-Vision in Walkinstown. Every bloody movie we rented was damaged in some way.

In the end I just went in and handed them back my membership card. They're a bunch of chancers and don't give a sh!t about their customers.

consultech

Kensington wrote: »

Wow, must make you feel so good. Threatening some poor sod who doesn't make any of the policies of the store, has no say whatsoever as to when a refund can/cannot be processed, probably has no authority to issue a refund if/when the situation arrises and would probably be issued a written warning should she override policy just to give you what you want. Well done sir.

My God you're all spectacularly uptight...

If the above scenario was actually true she wouldn't have been bothered by my threat at all, would have simply claimed duress from the management should her actions ever be legally challenged, and definitely wouldn't have u-turned as fast as she did.

The fact that she was able to dip her hand in the register as fast as she refused to give me a refund is testament to the fact that decisions to give refunds are clearly discretionary.

Sam Vimes

consultech wrote: »

The fact that she was able to dip her hand in the register as fast as she refused to give me a refund is testament to the fact that decisions to give refunds are clearly discretionary.

or more likely you scared her into doing something she wasn't allowed to do and got her in trouble with the management and may have got her disciplined or even sacked

javaboy

Consultech was in the right. The store and its employees were at fault. End of story.

It's not his fault he had to use a somewhat intimidating tactic to get what he is entitled to. That's a problem for her to take up with her manager.

What was he supposed to do? Let them hang on to his money until they feel like giving it back to him? The customer was inconvenienced enough. They shouldn't have to be inconvenienced any further.

Sam Vimes

javaboy wrote: »

Consultech was in the right. The store and its employees were at fault. End of story.

It's not his fault he had to use a somewhat intimidating tactic to get what he is entitled to. That's a problem for her to take up with her manager.

What was he supposed to do? Let them hang on to his money until they feel like giving it back to him?

he should have contacted the person who made the policy and had some say over whether the policy should be enforced instead of scaring a teenager into risking her job

you're right in that the policy isn't his fault but it's not her fault either

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

he should have contacted the person who made the policy and had some say over whether the policy should be enforced instead of scaring a teenager into risking her job

you're right in that the policy isn't his fault but it's not her fault either

So he bought something at a shop. It doesn't work. He brings it back and asks for a replacement. They haven't got any left. He asks for a refund. The employee won't give him one and he's supposed to go jumping through hoops contacting the person who made the policy?

That's absolutely ridiculous. I know the girl is not the main culprit here but that's not the customer's problem. The customer shouldn't have to make the kind of effort you're talking about in order to get the refund he's entitled to.

The girl's job is very unlikely to be at risk.

Sam Vimes

javaboy wrote: »

So he bought something at a shop. It doesn't work. He brings it back and asks for a replacement. They haven't got any left. He asks for a refund. The employee won't give him one and he's supposed to go jumping through hoops contacting the person who made the policy?

The girl's job is very unlikely to be at risk.

i take it you've never worked somewhere where you were threatened for doing your minimum wage job and told you'd be held personally responsible for something you had no control over then?

javaboy wrote: »

That's absolutely ridiculous. I know the girl is not the main culprit here but that's not the customer's problem. The customer shouldn't have to make the kind of effort you're talking about in order to get the refund he's entitled to.

and she's not being paid enough to put up with that kind of shite. Would you be saying this if it was your girlfriend?

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i take it you've never worked somewhere where you were threatened for doing your minimum wage job and told you'd be held personally responsible for something you had no control over then?

I have actually. The difference is I didn't enforce any policies that conflicted with people's statutory rights.

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and she's not being paid enough to put up with that kind of shite. Would you be saying this if it was your girlfriend?

Then she should quit or ask for more money or tell her employer to fix their policies.

I would tell my girlfriend to give the refund and hold out for an unfair dismissal case if the employer sacked her for not breaking the law.

Sam Vimes

javaboy wrote: »

I have actually. The difference is I didn't enforce any policies that conflicted with people's statutory rights.

i'd say you didn't last long if you constantly did things that you had no right to do tbh

and a policy that only managers are allowed give refunds doesn't conflict with anyone's statutory rights. It's not xtra vision's problem that their manager working hours aren't convenient for him

javaboy wrote: »

Then she should quit or ask for more money or tell her employer to fix their policies.

"quit your job" isn't really a solution to the problem in fairness. Principles are all well and good but you're the only one who suffers when you can't pay your bills because you didn't like that managers don't work late

javaboy wrote: »

I would tell my girlfriend to give the refund and hold out for an unfair dismissal case if the employer sacked her for not breaking the law.

the unfair dismissals legislation only applies to people who've been employed for more that a year. I wonder how long she's been working there....and even if she had been there more than a year, that's an awful lot to go through because someone threatened her for someone else's policy

bottom line he had no right to threaten her

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'd say you didn't last long if you constantly did things that you had no right to do tbh

Well we didn't have too many policies that caused problems so it wasn't really an issue.

and a policy that only managers are allowed give refunds doesn't conflict with anyone's statutory rights. It's not xtra vision's problem that their manager working hours aren't convenient for him

Of course it's Xtravision's problem. If the customer is in the right, the company should be accommodating him, not the other way around.

"quit your job" isn't really a solution to the problem in fairness. Principles are all well and good but you're the only one who suffers when you can't pay your bills because you didn't like that managers don't work late

Well I gave two other possible solutions too but yeah I'll admit none of them are great options. Your solution, that the customer should have to contact head office to speak to whoever makes the policies and jump over fences to get the refund he's entitled to, isn't much better imo.

the unfair dismissals legislation only applies to people who've been employed for more that a year. I wonder how long she's been working there....and even if she had been there more than a year, that's an awful lot to go through because someone threatened her for someone else's policy

I was only joking really about the unfair dismissals route although I don't believe any employee should be made to enforce a policy like that one.

Anyway, this is getting way off the original topic so I'm gonna leave it there.

Kensington

Sure the customer was inconvenienced but it still doesn't give anyone any right whatsoever, to threaten and intimidate someone who is, at the end of the day, just doing what they're told to do (debatable as the case may be).

If the customer went to the bother of ringing up to threaten the girl then surely he/she could just as easily have contacted the manager of the store to have a word, no? Or demanded that the employee who refused to give the refund get the store manager to contact him/her the next time they were in?

SoupyNorman

javaboy wrote: »

Consultech was in the right. The store and its employees were at fault. End of story.

That is one of the most ridiculous remarks Ive ever seen. The EMPLOYEES are at fault for how the store/management govern. The employees i.e. minimum wage, dispensable pawns are there to make a few quid, they are given basic responsibilities and therefore thats what should be expected on the customers behalf.

javaboy wrote: »

It's not his fault he had to use a somewhat intimidating tactic to get what he is entitled to. That's a problem for her to take up with her manager.

Yes it is his fault, he's a spineless coward who is the perfect example of someone who will capitalize on the opportunity to exploit a chance to scare someone who knows no better rather then take the issue up with a manager where they will be a whole lot more assertive and knowledgeable on any said matter.

javaboy wrote: »

What was he supposed to do? Let them hang on to his money until they feel like giving it back to him? The customer was inconvenienced enough. They shouldn't have to be inconvenienced any further.

See the manager, they may not have been there then but its not a traveling shop. The managers are not as elusive as the South American Ant Eater, a little cop on would go far here.

consultech wrote:

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

Seems a tad trollish to me!


I reckon that if you had indeed called to inform this girl of your intentions I would assume that some time would have passed until you were next in the shop. Common sense would certainly dictate that the employee would immediately pick up the phone and call their manager to say they've been threatened with legal action to which the manager would've quickly quipped that the customer was speaking directly through his farthole.

tony1kenobi

consultech wrote: »

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

If you were able to ring the shop to talk to the girl why didn't you just ring the store to talk to the manager? Your solicitor probably keeps similar hours to the manager of Xtravision so your job doesn't prevent you from conducting at least that amount of personal business during your working day. You probably could have sorted it out with the store manager in a matter of moments, without ever having to make an ass of yourself. I am a grown up so I don't know how much a video game costs. Is it less than the price of a consultation/solicitors letter?