A little help on consumer rights

Ninjedi

Hey guys just wondering if any of you know this off the top of your head:

A friend bought an item of clothing for her boyfriend for Christmas (a big woolly jumper before anyone asks ) and wants to return it because it's horrible. The store took it back, but the sales assistant only gave her €20 back instead of €40 because the jumper is on sale for that price now!

Am I away the wrong direction or is that a serious breach of her consumer rights?

TheZohanS

She should get the full amount back or a credit note. "being horrible" is not a valid excuse for return however.

FatherLen

i would say it is a breach but you are asking in the wrong forum.


it was'nt a jumper was it? it was a dildo!!!

WindSock

There is a consumer forum here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=580

ArmaniJeanss

I'd be confident she's entitled to nothing, and that the store is being relatively fair giving her €20.

Ninjedi

Sorry, as you can tell from the post count relatively new here, didn't know there was a forum for this.

Can a mod move please? Or has it already been to corrupted with randomness to be able to live there now?

TouchingVirus

I advise a thorough look at the boards.ie menu at the top of the forum - the #1 way to learn what forums boards has and where to put your threads. Serious After Hours threads never end well

whiskeyman

As the good wasn't faulty, she wasn't entitled to a Cash refund.
She was entitled to a credit note of the refund value (value of good at time of purchase) = €40.

phasers

Since there's nothing wrong with it, the shop don't have to give you anything. Take the €20.

Mr Magners

Ninjedi wrote: »

Hey guys just wondering if any of you know this off the top of your head:

A friend bought an item of clothing for her boyfriend for Christmas (a big woolly jumper before anyone asks ) and wants to return it because it's horrible. The store took it back, but the sales assistant only gave her €20 back instead of €40 because the jumper is on sale for that price now!

Am I away the wrong direction or is that a serious breach of her consumer rights?

Did she have a receipt? If not, unfortunately, she'll only get the amount the item is currently being sold for.

TheZohan wrote: »

She should get the full amount back or a credit note. "being horrible" is not a valid excuse for return however.

As above, without a recipt the store can only refund the current value of the item. Otherwise I could go in today and buy the thing for x (sale amount), bring it back tomorrow and claim it was bough pre-sale and look for the full amount to be refunded. Agree with the excuse for return not being valid though

TheZohanS

whiskeyman wrote: »

As the good wasn't faulty, she wasn't entitled to a Cash refund.
She was entitled to a credit note of the refund value (value of good at time of purchase) = €40.

Bang on. However the OP neglected to advise us that it was in fact a jizz jumper, therefore she is entitled to nothing.

In future use a sock OP.

WindSock

This happened me before when I returned something to Penny's. I was only given a refund of the current value of the item at the time as it was on sale.

FreudianSlippers

whiskeyman wrote: »

As the good wasn't faulty, she wasn't entitled to a Cash refund.
She was entitled to a credit note of the refund value (value of good at time of purchase) = €40.

IF she had a valid sales receipt.

Notorious

Ninjedi wrote: »

The store took it back, but the sales assistant only gave her €20 back instead of €40 because the jumper is on sale for that price now!

Am I away the wrong direction or is that a serious breach of her consumer rights?

If you've no receipt then you've got no case. If you do have a receipt, then they've to refund you what you paid for it.

ALSO, you don't need a valid reason for the return if it's being returned within 28 days of it being purchased.

28064212

OisinT wrote: »

IF she had a valid sales receipt.

Notorious wrote: »

If you've no receipt then you've got no case. If you do have a receipt, then they've to refund you what you paid for it.

No, they don't

Ninjedi

ALSO, you don't need a valid reason for the return if it's being returned within 28 days of it being purchased.

I thought it was seven days (seven days...)


<SNIP> Removing After Hours nonsense<SNIP>

28064212

Notorious wrote: »

ALSO, you don't need a valid reason for the return if it's being returned within 28 days of it being purchased.

ALSO completely untrue.

No wonder people working in retail hate customers so much

WindSock

<SNIP>

Come to think of it, when I returned my item to Penny's, I had no reciept and they refunded the sale value anyway. I *think* they said I would get the full value if I had the reciept. Not too sure though as it was a while ago.

I've never been asked why I return the item. If I were though I wouldn't say because its ming, just say Auntie bought me one and I have one already or some toss.

seamus

Notorious wrote: »

If you've no receipt then you've got no case. If you do have a receipt, then they've to refund you what you paid for it.

Not strictly true. In the case that you have a valid reason for returning the item (i.e. faulty), you technically don't need a receipt as proof of the contract, though it does help immensely, obviously.
You can still avail of your rights without a receipt, but if a retailer won't play ball you'd have to go to court.

ALSO, you don't need a valid reason for the return if it's being returned within 28 days of it being purchased.

Legally you need a valid reason to return any item. If you don't have a valid reason for returning an item, a retailer is not obliged to entertain your request. 28 days is a goodwill policy operated by most clothing stores.

jackiebaron

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. "Being a horrible gift" is not a valid reason for a return. She was entitled to nothing. The €20 is a good-will gesture on behalf of the store

So what ARE valid reasons for returning something to the store?

28064212

jackiebaron wrote: »

So what ARE valid reasons for returning something to the store?

From the Consumer Issues sticky

The goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what is said about them (advertising), what they are supposed to do, their durability and their price. Goods must also be fit for their purpose: in short they must do what they are sold as being capable of doing, and they must also be as described.

FreudianSlippers

28064212 wrote: »

No, they don't

Once there are no other conditions (eg time limit) then you are entitled to the amount you paid for the item should you return it.

This is regardless of whether or not it has been marked down in the meantime.

You have a contract with the company for a certain amount of consideration on both sides. Should you wish to rescind that contract and no outstanding conditions state otherwise, you are entitled to get the amount you paid back from the shop.

If you do not have a receipt, you still have a valid contract - but the problem then is that you cannot prove how much you actually paid for the item.
It is in these circumstances that they are in a position to offer only the current price for the item.

28064212

OisinT wrote: »

Once there are no other conditions (eg time limit) then you are entitled to the amount you paid for the item should you return it.

We're still talking about a non-faulty item, correct? An item the consumer has bought and then changed their mind about? You are not legally entitled to anything in that situation, not a refund, a credit note or the current price. Nothing

seamus

28064212 wrote: »

We're still talking about a non-faulty item, correct? An item the consumer has bought and then changed their mind about? You are not legally entitled to anything in that situation, not a refund, a credit note or the current price. Nothing

Not legally entitled, initially. But if a returns policy is a condition of sale (as it usually is), then the company cannot arbitrarily decide to not honour that returns policy as it forms part of the contract with the buyer.
In that case, they would be required to refund the full cost of the item as paid because they are allowing a method of rescinding the contract.

Where a receipt cannot be shown to prove when the item was purchased and how much was paid for it, then the shop would only be required to refund the current sale price of the item, not the price paid.

FreudianSlippers

28064212 wrote: »

We're still talking about a non-faulty item, correct? An item the consumer has bought and then changed their mind about? You are not legally entitled to anything in that situation, not a refund, a credit note or the current price. Nothing

In theory, yeah if there are no contractual return policies.. in practice this cannot actually occur. What about gifts etc?

I've never actually been to a shop where they would enforce such a stupid policy as no returns for changing your mind.

alwaysadub

28064212 wrote: »

We're still talking about a non-faulty item, correct? An item the consumer has bought and then changed their mind about? You are not legally entitled to anything in that situation, not a refund, a credit note or the current price. Nothing

Correct. Most shops will offer a credit note, maybe a refund sometimes. That is a gesture of goodwill on the shops behalf. But they are not obliged to take something back or refund you just cos you change your mind.

FreudianSlippers

What shops specifically are we talking about here that refuse to do returns if you change your mind?

Not to name and shame - but out of curiosity, we can easily find out their return policies.

28064212

OisinT wrote: »

In theory, yeah if there are no contractual return policies.. in practice this cannot actually occur. What about gifts etc?

....

OisinT wrote: »

Once there are no other conditions (eg time limit) then you are entitled to the amount you paid for the item should you return it.

We were talking about legal obligations

OisinT wrote: »

I've never actually been to a shop where they would enforce such a stupid policy as no returns for changing your mind.

Yes, most of the 'big' stores have returns policies. Many smaller retailers do not. And they can give you whatever they want. It is entirely dependent on what they decide at the time.

dolphin city

Ninjedi wrote: »

Hey guys just wondering if any of you know this off the top of your head:

A friend bought an item of clothing for her boyfriend for Christmas (a big woolly jumper before anyone asks ) and wants to return it because it's horrible. The store took it back, but the sales assistant only gave her €20 back instead of €40 because the jumper is on sale for that price now!

Am I away the wrong direction or is that a serious breach of her consumer rights?

that sounds right. If your friend still has her receipt then the sales person will give her full value for the "jumper". However if she does not have her receipt then she only gets sale value. How does the sales girl know that the jumper was not purchased in the sale, and you now want to get full value back for it therefore making money out of it.

get your receipt and you will get full value of the jumper. No receipt - then sales price only.

FreudianSlippers

28064212 wrote: »

....

We were talking about legal obligations


Yes, most of the 'big' stores have returns policies. Many smaller retailers do not. And they can give you whatever they want. It is entirely dependent on what they decide at the time.

Yes, if the shop does not have a policy then it is implied that the legislative policy is in place. As such, you have no redress for changing your mind etc.

However, when it comes down to the fact that the shop has agreed to accept the return (or if policy exists regarding returns) then unless specified elsewhere in the contract they must give you the amount you paid if you present a valid sales receipt.

28064212

OisinT wrote: »

However, when it comes down to the fact that the shop has agreed to accept the return (or if policy exists regarding returns) then unless specified elsewhere in the contract they must give you the amount you paid if you present a valid sales receipt.

The bolded part is wrong. If no returns policy formed part of the sale, the store can offer whatever they want. They can offer magic beans if they want to

This whole thread should just be renamed facepalm.

I agree with 28064212. It really is no wonder people hate working in retail.

I demand a refund I AM entitled. Um, no, you're not. Goway.


(not directed at OP, but the majority of the replying posters )

FreudianSlippers

28064212 wrote: »

The bolded part is wrong. If no returns policy formed part of the sale, the store can offer whatever they want. They can offer magic beans if they want to

Actually I'll agree with you there. If no returns policy formed part of the sale, the original contract has concluded.
Any return in this regard is actually the formation of a new contract which they may offer any consideration they see fit.


It still stands though that if there is a return policy, barring any terms that would specify otherwise, they must give you the amount you paid if you present a valid sales receipt.

28064212

OisinT wrote: »

Actually I'll agree with you there. If no returns policy formed part of the sale, the original contract has concluded.
Any return in this regard is actually the formation of a new contract which they may offer any consideration they see fit.

...so we're entirely in agreement? Unless the OP has a receipt and there's a store policy on returns that they've met, they should take the €20 and run?

FreudianSlippers

28064212 wrote: »

...so we're entirely in agreement? Unless the OP has a receipt and there's a store policy on returns that they've met, they should take the €20 and run?

Yep.

Corruptedmorals

OisinT wrote: »

What shops specifically are we talking about here that refuse to do returns if you change your mind?

Not to name and shame - but out of curiosity, we can easily find out their return policies.

Office is one. Which is doubly strange because Schuh accept returns up to a year afterwards. I'd imagine the amount of boutiques and one-off shops that do goodwill refunds is extremely small.

If you have a receipt and the shop operates a goodwill refund policy, then you should get the FULL amount back. That's the way it works. I remember some guy came in about 3 months after he bought a €28 hoody wanting to do an exchange without a receipt, and it had been reduced to €3. Almost all shops that operate goodwill refunds will not do them without a receipt and will offer exchanges if you have no receipt. You might not think it but you WILL actually get people who rob stuff and come back later trying to get a refund. Numerous occasions. So the moral of the story is- you need a receipt first to prove you bought it and second to prove what price you paid.

Yeah the amount of people who kick up a fuss if they're beyond the 28 days or don't have a receipt etc.- where I worked took back stuff for 28 days after, even with tags stapled back on. The awful thing about goodwill policies is that people think that a refund is their absolute right.

borderlinemeath

No retailer is under any legal obligation to accept unwanted gifts/change of mind returns without a valid sales receipt. In fact even with a receipt it is at the discretion of the retailer and the policy that they offer in addition to your statutory rights.
As above poster said there are numerous scams with "customers" trying to return things they have literally picked up and brought up to the counter.

Most chains and department stores have policies in place that all tickets and packaging must also be in place, and also receipts/proof of purchase have to be produced even for faulty returns, particularly in the case of a branded item that can be sold in multiple retail outlets (take Clarks shoes for example, sold in Arnotts, Debenhams, Shaws, Clarks outlets and many other independent shoe retailers nationwide and in the UK.) Why would Arnotts be obliged to take back a pair of shoes that may have been purchased in so many other retailers?

Take the €20 and run OP. And read up on consumer rights.

davo10

OP read this:


http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Refunds-and-credit-notes/


Mods, whenever you see the words, "return", "refund" or "what are my rights/entitlements", could you refer the OP to the NCA website and the above link, it will reduce the number of silly posts which give wrong info.

borderlinemeath

davo10 wrote: »

OP read this:


http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Refunds-and-credit-notes/


Mods, whenever you see the words, "return", "refund" or "what are my rights/entitlements", could you refer the OP to the NCA website and the above link, it will reduce the number of silly posts which give wrong info.

In fairness the majority of silly posts on this one are because I think it started off in after hours..

davo10

borderlinemeath wrote: »

In fairness the majority of silly posts on this one are because I think it started off in after hours..

I understand that Borderline, but there seems to be an huge amount of posters on the consumer issues forum who believe they are "entitled" to redress even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with the items purchased.

borderlinemeath

davo10 wrote: »

I understand that Borderline, but there seems to be an huge amount of posters on the consumer issues forum who believe they are "entitled" to redress even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with the items purchased.

True, and that's why they post here.
The NCA website gives a broad generalisation on consumer rights and returns, but it can be too confusing/too ambiguous for some people so they look for opinions.
I agree there are a lot of people that haven't got a clue and believe they have "entitlements" when they are in fact entitled to diddly squat. But better they find out here than go and lose the rag with retail staff.

davo10

borderlinemeath wrote: »

True, and that's why they post here.
The NCA website gives a broad generalisation on consumer rights and returns, but it can be too confusing/too ambiguous for some people so they look for opinions.
I agree there are a lot of people that haven't got a clue and believe they have "entitlements" when they are in fact entitled to diddly squat. But better they find out here than go and lose the rag with retail staff.

I agree totally, but the page that link above goes to in NCA site is pretty easy to understand and if people are encouraged to read it first then it will reduce the number of half truths/misinformation posted about consumer "rights".

wmpdd3

Believe it or not I have had people print out the pages from the NCA and read tem to me. When I point out it says FAULTY, they say yes, sure it doesn't fit me isn't that faulty!

dudara

davo10 wrote: »

I agree totally, but the page that link above goes to in NCA site is pretty easy to understand and if people are encouraged to read it first then it will reduce the number of half truths/misinformation posted about consumer "rights".

We do encourage them to read it, there is a link to it in a sticky at the top of this forum.

TBH - you can't just make a sweeping generalisation and point everyone to the NCA website. Then there would be no need for this forum. People ask questions if they don't understand something, that's human nature. Granted those questions may seem silly, or even stupid to some posters, but they do have the right to ask them. The regular group of posters here help them out as best they can.

dudara

Duckjob

seamus wrote: »

Not legally entitled, initially. But if a returns policy is a condition of sale (as it usually is), then the company cannot arbitrarily decide to not honour that returns policy as it forms part of the contract with the buyer.
In that case, they would be required to refund the full cost of the item as paid because they are allowing a method of rescinding the contract.

Where a receipt cannot be shown to prove when the item was purchased and how much was paid for it, then the shop would only be required to refund the current sale price of the item, not the price paid.

Firstly, the onus is on the consumer to prove that the item was purchased by the consumer in the shop. This is most commonly proved by means of a shop sales receipt, but it does not have to be.

If the customer cannot provide proof that the item was bought in the shop, then the shop has no obligation to him/her of any kind.

After that, for a non-faulty item you're getting into the returns policy of the shop and how it impacts the contract of sale formed with the consumer.

There is nothing written into law that compels a shop to refund a non-faulty item that the consumer has simply changed their mind about after purchasing.

seamus

Duckjob wrote: »

If the customer cannot provide proof that the item was bought in the shop, then the shop has no obligation to him/her of any kind.

Not true. A contract still exists regardless of whether or not a receipt was issued. There's no legal obligation on the seller to issue a receipt (afair), therefore a receipt cannot be a mandatory requirement to establish proof that a contract exists.

However, if you rock up to a shop with no receipt or other means of proving that you purchased the item (such as a credit card bill), that doesn't mean the shop is obligated to sort you out on the spot. The shop can obviously and reasonably claim that the item may not have been purchased there. The consumer would be entitled to take the shop to court, where a judge would decide - on the balance of probabilities - if the item had been bought in the shop and therefore if the shop has an obligation to the buyer.

Most shops are actually aware of this in their policies. If I walk into my local Penneys with an item that can only be purchased in Penneys, then logically I must have purchased that item in Penneys and so they will generally honour a refund policy. Both in the interests of customer service and because it's easier than having the odd militant person go legal on them.

Duckjob

seamus wrote: »

Not true. A contract still exists regardless of whether or not a receipt was issued. There's no legal obligation on the seller to issue a receipt (afair), therefore a receipt cannot be a mandatory requirement to establish proof that a contract exists.

However, if you rock up to a shop with no receipt or other means of proving that you purchased the item (such as a credit card bill), that doesn't mean the shop is obligated to sort you out on the spot. The shop can obviously and reasonably claim that the item may not have been purchased there. The consumer would be entitled to take the shop to court, where a judge would decide - on the balance of probabilities - if the item had been bought in the shop and therefore if the shop has an obligation to the buyer.

Firstly, consumers are always advised to ask for a receipt if they dont get one.

However, as I said in my last post, proof of purchase doesnt have to be a store receipt. It could be a credit card statement with a charge from the store/business name on it for the amount of the item, or CCTV obtained from the store showing the consumer buying the item etc.

I take your point that it is perhaps not based on absolute proof, but in practice the end result is going to be the same: If a consumer goes legal and has no receipt, the shops first defense is likely to be - you can't prove you bought that from us, if the consumer doesn't have any evidence to convince the court otherwise, they don't have a case.

Most shops are actually aware of this in their policies. If I walk into my local Penneys with an item that can only be purchased in Penneys, then logically I must have purchased that item in Penneys and so they will generally honour a refund policy.

Would that argument (this can only be bought in X store) stand up in court though? Maybe 20 yrs ago, but given you can now order anything from anywhere in the world at a couple of clicks, couldn't a store make that argument ?

Lcronin2011

Ninjedi wrote: »

the sales assistant only gave her €20 back instead of €40 because the jumper is on sale for that price now!

Am I away the wrong direction or is that a serious breach of her consumer rights?

No that is totally violating your consumer rights. Saying the jumper is horrible isn't a good enough reason though.She should just say the size is too big or something like that.That way she has a valid reason. It doesn't matter if there is a sale on, if she bought it at full price and has a receipt to prove this, she should get the 40 euro back. I work in a shop and have loads of people returning items bought for christmas during the sale. Refund them the price it was bought at. If she didnt have a receipt she still shouldn't have gotten 20 euro. She should have got store credit of 40 euro. Go on to the consumer rights website, you can always email them with questions. hope this helps

28064212

Lcronin2011 wrote: »

No that is totally violating your consumer rights. Saying the jumper is horrible isn't a good enough reason though.She should just say the size is too big or something like that.That way she has a valid reason. It doesn't matter if there is a sale on, if she bought it at full price and has a receipt to prove this, she should get the 40 euro back. I work in a shop and have loads of people returning items bought for christmas during the sale. Refund them the price it was bought at. If she didnt have a receipt she still shouldn't have gotten 20 euro. She should have got store credit of 40 euro. Go on to the consumer rights website, you can always email them with questions. hope this helps

No it's not violating their rights. Have a read of the 46 posts between the first one and yours and learn why

seamus

Duckjob wrote: »

Would that argument (this can only be bought in X store) stand up in court though? Maybe 20 yrs ago, but given you can now order anything from anywhere in the world at a couple of clicks, couldn't a store make that argument ?

It really depends on the item in question. Courts usually tend to take things at face value and err on the side of whoever's out of pocket.

For example, if I live in Tallaght and I'm looking for a replacement for a faulty dishwasher from D.I.D. in Tallaght but I can't provide any kind of proof-of-purchase, the judge can look at the case on its merits - i.e. D.I.D. stock that model dishwasher, chances are I did buy from that D.I.D. (because it's local), and even if I didn't D.I.D. will be adequately refunded by the manufacturer for the replacement, so no harm no foul.

I know I'm arguing more of an academic point than anything; Chances are D.I.D. can look at the dishwasher's S/N and tell whether or not they sold it. In this modern time it's much less likely for such a case to end up in court because proof can be much more readily established even without a receipt.
I just don't like the "no receipt, tough ****" line, because although it makes your case far more difficult, a lack of a receipt doesn't remove your statutory rights.

davo10

dudara wrote: »

We do encourage them to read it, there is a link to it in a sticky at the top of this forum.

TBH - you can't just make a sweeping generalisation and point everyone to the NCA website. Then there would be no need for this forum. People ask questions if they don't understand something, that's human nature. Granted those questions may seem silly, or even stupid to some posters, but they do have the right to ask them. The regular group of posters here help them out as best they can.

dudara

dudara, i have no issue with OP's posting questions but when Lcronin2011 posts that OP'S consumer rights have been violated when they clearly haven't then things are getting a bit silly.