Receipt for faulty goods??

Truckermal

Hi folks just a quick question I purchased a bluetooth hands free about 5 weeks ago in a Vodafone shop but dumped the receipt and box anyway returned it to the store and they said I need a receipt before they will send it away for repair.

I know that we should keep receipts but I forgot on this occasion what should I do??

Cheers.

gravehold

Truckermal wrote: »

Hi folks just a quick question I purchased a bluetooth hands free about 5 weeks ago in a Vodafone shop but dumped the receipt and box anyway returned it to the store and they said I need a receipt before they will send it away for repair.

I know that we should keep receipts but I forgot on this occasion what should I do??

Cheers.

Pay by card? If The amount matches the price they might take as good faith the product bought that day was the headphones.

L1011

gravehold wrote: »

Pay by card? If The amount matches the price they might take as good faith the product bought that day was the headphones.

Card receipts are valid proof of purchase for statutory rights. No good faith required

gravehold

L1011 wrote: »

Card receipts are valid proof of purchase for statutory rights. No good faith required

No they arn't they don't have product detail on them the card receipt could be for any purchase, most shops use the card time to look up the security camera time code to see if it was used to buy that product.

We had a person come in with credit card receipts trying to return a €45 product with a €60 card receipt and wanted the 60 euro back for returning the product. Looked up the security video and the €60 was used to buy phone credit not what he was trying to return

L1011

No, they are. Shops fault if they can't reference auth codes with purchases.

gravehold

L1011 wrote: »

No, they are. Shops fault if they can't reference auth codes with purchases.

rte.ie/tv/theafternoonshow/2009/0107/tinaleonard681.html

Most say may accept which most shops do on good faith unless they smell a rat like the scammer trying to return a 45 euro product with a receipt for 60 euro

L1011

Nope. Its a legally valid proof of purchase. "May accept" does not apply when faulty / not as described / not fit for purchase.

Requiring one on a voluntary returns policy is entirely different but irrelevant here.

Truckermal

I paid in cash definitely.

gravehold

Truckermal wrote: »

I paid in cash definitely.

Then you are boned, take it as a life lesson keep you shop receipts

Truckermal

gravehold wrote: »

Then you are boned, take it as a life lesson keep you shop receipts

Funnily enough I just sent a tweet to the manufacturer and they are sorting it so happy days!!

kennethsmyth

L1011 wrote: »

Nope. Its a legally valid proof of purchase. "May accept" does not apply when faulty / not as described / not fit for purchase.

Requiring one on a voluntary returns policy is entirely different but irrelevant here.

Again it is not a legally valid proof of purchase - only linking the amount with the point of sale system proves that the amount on the credit card statement equals what you bought - it is the shops goodwill to accept the credit card statement as proof of purchase.

If you can prove otherwise - legal statute not consumer advise, rumors etc.. please post

Lux23

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Again it is not a legally valid proof of purchase - only linking the amount with the point of sale system proves that the amount on the credit card statement equals what you bought - it is the shops goodwill to accept the credit card statement as proof of purchase.

If you can prove otherwise - legal statute not consumer advise, rumors etc.. please post

For faulty goods? I don't think it should matter if the product is faulty.

kennethsmyth

Lux23 wrote: »

For faulty goods? I don't think it should matter if the product is faulty.

Correct it should not matter if the company has any form of goodwill, however some do require a receipt. However if it were to go to court I'm sure the court would accept the statement as proof of purchase.

Ging Ging

gravehold wrote:

Most say may accept which most shops do on good faith unless they smell a rat like the scammer trying to return a 45 euro product with a receipt for 60 euro

Was it a pet shop that also sells call credit?

L1011

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Again it is not a legally valid proof of purchase - only linking the amount with the point of sale system proves that the amount on the credit card statement equals what you bought - it is the shops goodwill to accept the credit card statement as proof of purchase.

If you can prove otherwise - legal statute not consumer advise, rumors etc.. please post

You're the one making the illogical statement in need of support here - and your support so far has been an irrelevant reference to an unwanted gifts return policy. You need to prove your line about receipts - and you're not going to be able to.

kennethsmyth wrote: »

However if it were to go to court I'm sure the court would accept the statement as proof of purchase.

They will - as its a legally valid proof of purchase.

If the shop is unable to reconcile a proof of payment with the actual purchase, tough. Goodwill is completely irrelevant.

You appear to be repeatedly confusing a returns policy with statutory rights here.


If you choose to ignore the Citizens Information Service and the Consumer Protection & Competition Commission - both statutory bodies - suit yourself, but you're wrong.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_complaints/how_to_make_a_consumer_complaint.html

http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods

If you can also show me where the SOGA actually mentions receipts at all that'd be good (quick note: It doesn't).

dudara

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Again it is not a legally valid proof of purchase - only linking the amount with the point of sale system proves that the amount on the credit card statement equals what you bought - it is the shops goodwill to accept the credit card statement as proof of purchase.

If you can prove otherwise - legal statute not consumer advise, rumors etc.. please post

I'm not going to dig out the statute here, but a credit card statement etc IS a valid proof of purchase. Receipts are obviously the best form, but others are acceptable. This is in the case of faulty goods only.

If we're talking about a return/change of mind scenario, then the shop can impose whatever restrictions they want.

WildCardDoW

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Again it is not a legally valid proof of purchase - only linking the amount with the point of sale system proves that the amount on the credit card statement equals what you bought - it is the shops goodwill to accept the credit card statement as proof of purchase.

If you can prove otherwise - legal statute not consumer advise, rumors etc.. please post

Any decent till system will have a log of transactions that can easily recalled by the date, time and price. Some don't but either way a credit card statement is considered proof of purchase. I'm not going to the exact statement but the below is from Citizen's Information:

Proof of purchase
It is your responsibility to prove that you bought the goods or services that you are complaining about. A receipt is just one way to prove that you bought an item or paid for a service. If you paid for the item by credit card, you could use your credit card statement as proof of purchase. A cheque stub can also be used as proof of purchase. If you do pay for an item in cash, ask for a receipt and keep it safe. A receipt issued following a cash transaction is your only record that you have bought an item.

MarkAnthony

Ah the old proof of purchase debate again.

A receipt is not proof positive of purchase, nether is a credit card slip. Both to a greater and lesser extent get you over the 50% requirement for a civil claim, hence why most stores will accept them. Also it's just good customer service to try and help the customer, any good store isn't approaching this from a right and wrong of not having a receipt, they're simply trying to avoid being scammed - people lose sight of this.

Other evidence of purchase is, being remembered by the shop assistant, own brand goods and half a dozen other things. No I can't link it, there is no definitive list it's up to the registrar or DC court judge on the day. No point in anyone getting their knickers in a twist it's simply not black and white as many seem to think.

The most definitive proof of purchase in the world is not necessarily proof of contract which is what, ultimately, you're looking for.

kennethsmyth

L1011 wrote: »

You're the one making the illogical statement in need of support here - and your support so far has been an irrelevant reference to an unwanted gifts return policy. You need to prove your line about receipts - and you're not going to be able to.



They will - as its a legally valid proof of purchase.

If the shop is unable to reconcile a proof of payment with the actual purchase, tough. Goodwill is completely irrelevant.

You appear to be repeatedly confusing a returns policy with statutory rights here.


If you choose to ignore the Citizens Information Service and the Consumer Protection & Competition Commission - both statutory bodies - suit yourself, but you're wrong.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_complaints/how_to_make_a_consumer_complaint.html

http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods

If you can also show me where the SOGA actually mentions receipts at all that'd be good (quick note: It doesn't).

Lets be clear about what I have said and how you are interpreting.

1. I have mentioned goodwill of the shop - I did not mention unwanted gifts policy. I talked of goodwill in the context that the amount stated on a bank statement does not show that you bought the item from the shop, only that you bought an item from the shop.

2. "They will - as its a legally valid proof of purchase." Actually its legally valid proof the customer purchased something, which may or may not the item being brought in faulty.

3. "If the shop is unable to reconcile a proof of payment with the actual purchase, tough" - this is your words and they are correct in that it is tough for the purchaser not the shop. If they cannot reconcile a statement to the item and a purchase on the system the customer would not have proved purchase of the item only a value on the statement. Hence the unequivocal proof of the receipt maybe required by the shop and they are entitled to request it.

4. I have not confused a returns policy with statutory rights - simply the value on the statement is not full proof, its a half proof. Customer must have "proof of purchase", again, not proof of a purchase which may or may not be the item brought in.

5. Regarding the two statutory bodies you mention, both also indicate that if an item is faulty you have recourse to refund, repair or replace. What both fail to mention is that the shop chooses the method not the customer. I mention this in the context that both bodies lean towards the customer but do not indicate the letter of the law.

6. You are however correct in that the sale of goods act does not mention that a receipt is required. Proof of purchase is required, if you produce a bank statement with an amount on it that matches the purchase on the shops point of sale that is proof of purchase. The bank statement alone is not.

7. "suit yourself, but you're wrong" - you might have well as put FACT on the end of that sentence. As I pointed out in point 5 by way of example of how the statutory bodies do not always show the full truth, law is interpreted and there can be variations in how things can be presented.
"Proof of purchase" is what is required, is it proof of purchase if the statement does not mention the item directly?? That is what we are both interpreting. I say no, you say yes. I will let others decide on the balance of probabilities but I did not say you are wrong. It is incredibly arrogant of you to state I am wrong when you don't look deeper into the question.

However when all is said and done any shop worth its salt will check up the transaction and accept the bank statement as proof of purchase.

Here is a scenario that shows how proof of purchase could be misused.

Customer purchases item.
Customer returns with older item but same product as purchased that is now broken.
Shop replaces item and now the customer has two new items.

This does happen, specifically in shops where the item sold is small electrical and many persons own the same small electrical item eg hair straighter. ie someone is buying a new item and their friend has an older one that's broken. In this instance both get new items.

Before someone says that wouldn't happen often - I have seen it happening more times that most would imagine.

Essentially MarkAnthony sums it up much better and more succinctly than I. Apologies for length of post.

L1011

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Lets be clear about what I have said and how you are interpreting.

1. I have mentioned goodwill of the shop - I did not mention unwanted gifts policy. I talked of goodwill in the context that the amount stated on a bank statement does not show that you bought the item from the shop, only that you bought an item from the shop.

2. "They will - as its a legally valid proof of purchase." Actually its legally valid proof the customer purchased something, which may or may not the item being brought in faulty.

3. "If the shop is unable to reconcile a proof of payment with the actual purchase, tough" - this is your words and they are correct in that it is tough for the purchaser not the shop. If they cannot reconcile a statement to the item and a purchase on the system the customer would not have proved purchase of the item only a value on the statement. Hence the unequivocal proof of the receipt maybe required by the shop and they are entitled to request it.

4. I have not confused a returns policy with statutory rights - simply the value on the statement is not full proof, its a half proof. Customer must have "proof of purchase", again, not proof of a purchase which may or may not be the item brought in.

5. Regarding the two statutory bodies you mention, both also indicate that if an item is faulty you have recourse to refund, repair or replace. What both fail to mention is that the shop chooses the method not the customer. I mention this in the context that both bodies lean towards the customer but do not indicate the letter of the law.

6. You are however correct in that the sale of goods act does not mention that a receipt is required. Proof of purchase is required, if you produce a bank statement with an amount on it that matches the purchase on the shops point of sale that is proof of purchase. The bank statement alone is not.

7. "suit yourself, but you're wrong" - you might have well as put FACT on the end of that sentence. As I pointed out in point 5 by way of example of how the statutory bodies do not always show the full truth, law is interpreted and there can be variations in how things can be presented.
"Proof of purchase" is what is required, is it proof of purchase if the statement does not mention the item directly?? That is what we are both interpreting. I say no, you say yes. I will let others decide on the balance of probabilities but I did not say you are wrong. It is incredibly arrogant of you to state I am wrong when you don't look deeper into the question.

However when all is said and done any shop worth its salt will check up the transaction and accept the bank statement as proof of purchase.

Here is a scenario that shows how proof of purchase could be misused.

Customer purchases item.
Customer returns with older item but same product as purchased that is now broken.
Shop replaces item and now the customer has two new items.

This does happen, specifically in shops where the item sold is small electrical and many persons own the same small electrical item eg hair straighter. ie someone is buying a new item and their friend has an older one that's broken. In this instance both get new items.

Before someone says that wouldn't happen often - I have seen it happening more times that most would imagine.

Essentially MarkAnthony sums it up much better and more succinctly than I. Apologies for length of post.

A lengthy rambling post that still misses the point and is still fundamentally wrong.

Any shop that tries to refuse a bank statement etc as proof of purchase is going to have it taken as such at Small Claims - meaning they've just added cost and pointless complexity (rather like your post...) for absolutely nothing. There is no "deeper question", no "interpretation", nothing. A credit card statement or receipt is a legally valid proof of purchase, and the only arrogance here is in thinking that it is "good will" to obey the law.

I'm not replying to another diatribe, though. If you want to post one, go ahead, but it'll still be incorrect.

kennethsmyth

L1011 wrote: »

A lengthy rambling post that still misses the point and is still fundamentally wrong.

Whoever "educated" you in this area in your retail career was attempting to cover themselves and not actually informing you of reality.

Any shop that tries to refuse a bank statement etc as proof of purchase is going to have it taken as such at Small Claims - meaning they've just added cost and pointless complexity (rather like your post...) for absolutely nothing.

For the love of god, again with the personal attack "whowever "educated" you". This is reality a bank statement is not full proof of purchase, MarkAnthony admittedly has put it better than me but my point stands.

Yes if you want to go to small claims you will probably win as you are testifying that you bought the product there. But again the bank statement is not full proof, its your testimony with the statement that proves the point.

Back to the personal digs, once you started down that road you have lost the argument, you just can't admit it. You have started a process of saying you're wrong I'm right. Its not that black and white but you cannot admit it.

"A lengthy rambling post" - dead right it is, I mentioned this at the end and stated that MarkAnthony had put it succinctly and better.

So to finish how about "you're wrong" because this is turning into a "no you are" tit for tat debate without the debate.

I have only tried to open your eyes to the full aspect of proof of purchase but you are unwilling to move from your opinion of what proof of purchase means.

Ps its vague in case your "educated" mind cannot fathom it.

kennethsmyth

Obviously whowever was meant to spell whoever - first in before grammar nazis

MarkAnthony

L1011 wrote: »

A credit card statement or receipt is a legally valid proof of purchase, and the only arrogance here is in thinking that it is "good will" to obey the law.

I'm afraid you have this somewhat incorrect. There is no 'law' on the subject as such. It's merely an evidentiary burden that needs to be overcome to prove the contact exists between the buyer and seller. The standard is over 50% in a civil case.

There is nothing legally stopping a shop refusing to take even a receipt as 'proof of purchase' a concept that doesn't really exist as anything is mere evidence of purchase. There's nothing to stop the court simply taken the sworn oral statement of the plaintiff that that's where he purchased the item.

You're probably right that the correct avenue with a retailer being that intractable is the Small Claims Procedure but I would be wary of categorically stating one would be 100% successful 100% of the time with merely a credit card statement (something I notice the OP stated they don't have quite a few posts back) in court. The Judge/Registrar may very well take the view that one should have retained the receipt and be unsympathetic to the buyers plight. It's unlikely with a large chain and EPOS system to be fair but this 'debate' seems to have wandered off the OP into more general territory at this stage.

delahuntv

A credit card receipt or bank statement is NOT a LEGAL proof of purchase.

If L1011 can show me this in any statute I will eat my hat and give away all my stock for free.


it however can aid in the consumer's case and many stores will accept it as genuine, but it certainly is not "PROOF".

I really wish posts spurting such mus information could be corrected/deleted as some fools will quote such bs as "the law"

L1011

delahuntv wrote: »

If L1011 can show me this in any statute I will eat my hat and give away all my stock for free.

Show me the statute definition in the first place. There isn't one.

In any legal situation, its an accepted proof of purchase. This is a common law issue.

Anyone who thinks they can get off providing statutory rights because its not a receipt is in for a welcome shock when they end up in court. Retailers who act like they're doing you a favour in this case don't deserve your business

Are you going to delete your post when you fail to find the definition in question, based on your suggestion above? An apology for calling it "bs" would be appreciated too.

MarkAnthony

delahuntv wrote: »

A credit card receipt or bank statement is NOT a LEGAL proof of purchase.

If L1011 can show me this in any statute I will eat my hat and give away all my stock for free.


it however can aid in the consumer's case and many stores will accept it as genuine, but it certainly is not "PROOF".

I really wish posts spurting such mus information could be corrected/deleted as some fools will quote such bs as "the law"

Is it anything good you're giving away?

dudara

@delahuntv - if you have an issue with the content of a post, then report it. Do not comment on thread about deletion etc.

All posters - this is starting to turn into a discussion more suitable for Legal Disucussion, which is where you can continue it. This forum is for Consumer Issues and from a consumer perspective, a credit card statement or equivalent is recognised as a means of evidencing purchase.

dudara