Consumer Rights

[shredder1]

Agreed and I am very happy to enforce my rights. However all sides have to play the game. An offer of a repair is a perfectly acceptable response at first instance outside of the statutory 30 day period. After such a fix failed, could not be delivered, was not possible in a cost effective manner or could not be delivered in an acceptable timescale a further discussion about remedy should take place. Clearly then a good will offer to replace the product or refund seems reasonable.

Furthermore to expect that repair to be undertaken or completed on site in what is obviously a retail environment is not realistic. The manufacturer (or their contractor) is going to have to make the repair and that is going to take a little bit of time to facilitate.

Being told what the law says, being offered a perfectly acceptable remedy, refusing that remedy, having a paddy and stropping off is, in my mind, childish.

PS it is also possible ( and i don't suggest that the OP would do such a thing) that the shop have had issues with people buying expensive coats, wearing them a couple of times in the cold, damaging them while claiming faulty manufacture and asking for a refund. It happens all the time.

Thats a bit harsh mate, I didnt "have a paddy and stropping off is, in my mind, childish", I simply took direct action, the fault was obvious, regardless of what any legislation allows, does it not make economic sense and create good will to simply replace a faulty item there and then and not inconvienience your customers further, I didnt even recieve an apology.

 

[DarloRich]

Thats a bit harsh mate, I didnt "have a paddy and stropping off is, in my mind, childish", I simply took direct action, the fault was obvious, regardless of what any legislation allows, does it not make economic sense and create good will to simply replace a faulty item there and then and not inconvienience your customers further, I didnt even recieve an apology.

The fault may be obvious but so is the response from the vendor. They offered you what they were obliged to offer you. You didn't like that and had/have unrelastic expectations about a remedy.

Customer service doesn't mean simply give the customer what they want. However you got the result you wanted, even if it wasn't one you were entitled to.

 

[shredder1]

Hahaha, OK. Sometimes we have to take direct action, thats how we evolved as a society, thanks to the mass tresspass on Kinder Scout by Benny and his mates, it did the trick, we now have the freedom to Roam, sometimes its wiser to progress changes in legislation, or would you still prefer to be burning witches my good friend

 

[DarloRich]

Hahaha, OK. Sometimes we have to take direct action, thats how we evolved as a society, thanks to the mass tresspass on Kinder Scout by Benny and his mates, it did the trick, we now have the freedom to Roam, sometimes its wiser to progress changes in legislation, or would you still prefer to be burning witches my good friend

You behaved like a spoilt child but got what you wanted. You may be happy to act in that manner. I am not. I still don't know on what basis you threatened legal action. Can you explain further?

 

[GB]

Have to agree with DarloRich. The initial response from the retailer based on the fault and time frame was adequate and legal. Might not have been to your liking but shops are not there to have their pants pulled down any more than you are. You may have got what you wanted in the end but that doesn't make you right and I suspect the shop caved because they couldn't be bothered with the hassle.

 

[nlogax]

There's a fine line between knowing your rights and abusing them.

 

[AlterEgo]

There's a fine line between knowing your rights and abusing them.

I don’t think the OP abused any rights.

It seems more reasonable to me for the shop to offer a replacement than repair. It’s winter and the guy was without his jacket. I would have pressed strongly for a replacement.

The shop can still effect the repair on the returned jacket and sell it to another customer.

 

[GB]

and if you were that customer you would be happy with buying someone else's used, damaged and repaired item?

 

[AlterEgo]

and if you were that customer you would be happy with buying someone else's used, damaged and repaired item?

I wouldn’t know.

The whole point is, if it can be resold as new, it will be. As long as it is exactly the same as a new item which hasn’t been sold, I don’t see the issue.

 

[shredder1]

You behaved like a spoilt child but got what you wanted. You may be happy to act in that manner. I am not. I still don't know on what basis you threatened legal action. Can you explain further?

Well, I don`t mind the insults that you throw at me and I do try to communicate with you in a friendly way Darlo, but it would seem there are two ways of looking at this, your way and the right one

 

[shredder1]

Have to agree with DarloRich. The initial response from the retailer based on the fault and time frame was adequate and legal. Might not have been to your liking but shops are not there to have their pants pulled down any more than you are. You may have got what you wanted in the end but that doesn't make you right and I suspect the shop caved because they couldn't be bothered with the hassle.

Shops are there to sell goods and make a profit, they achieve this by keeping customers happy and being fair, my time and travel is valuable, if I buy goods which develope a fault within a short period, and the store manager agrees with me, then I expect a replacement and an apology, especially when I have to go out of my way to return them, otherwise I take my custom elsewhere. The initial response from the retailer was unacceptable, you wasnt there, so you don`t know. If I sold goods to someone and the goods developed a fault shortly afteward, I would return their money with apologies, I expect to be treated the same way, especially from a large retailer. Just because something is legal doesnt mean it is right, please read my previous posts. If you are the type of person that is quite happy to accept things, even if you know they are wrong, then thats fine, some of use however are not built that way though.

 

[shredder1]

There's a fine line between knowing your rights and abusing them.

I was the one being abused, I simply bit them back

 

[shredder1]

and if you were that customer you would be happy with buying someone else's used, damaged and repaired item?

I presume you mean faulty goods, not damaged goods that have been returned, please re-read the threads.

 

[GB]

If you are the type of person that is quite happy to accept things, even if you know they are wrong, then thats fine, some of use however are not built that way though.

I accept what I consider reasonable. My definition of reasonable obviously differs from yours. The first offer of repair was reasonable no matter how hard you beat your chest.

 

[shredder1]

I accept what I consider reasonable. My definition of reasonable obviously differs from yours. The first offer of repair was reasonable no matter how hard you beat your chest.

Me Tarzan, him Cheetah

 

[GusB]

PS it is also possible ( and i don't suggest that the OP would do such a thing) that the shop have had issues with people buying expensive coats, wearing them a couple of times in the cold, damaging them while claiming faulty manufacture and asking for a refund. It happens all the time.

Having previously worked for a catalogue company, I can attest to this. I've had customers demand to know why that little black dress they returned as "unwanted", found its way back to them (with a re-delivery charge). A quick call to the returns team usually revealed that it had been sent back with clear evidence of having been worn on a night out.

 

[shredder1]

Having previously worked for a catalogue company, I can attest to this. I've had customers demand to know why that little black dress they returned as "unwanted", found its way back to them (with a re-delivery charge). A quick call to the returns team usually revealed that it had been sent back with clear evidence of having been worn on a night out.

Thats not on is it, in fact its fraud.

 

[shredder1]

Well I went back to the Go Outdoors, Manchester store with my email from head office and the store couldnt have been nicer, so I thought instead of having my money back, I`d just take a replacement, because I do like the colour and style of the coat. Anyway these two very nice chaps went off into the store and came back very apologetic saying they didnt have one in stock, but would order me one and have it delivered, how nice of them. They tried to order one but they were out of stock, so I finished up having to take my money back after all. On arriving home however I checked on the internet and found the exact same one for £60 cheaper, wish id have tried the internet in the first place

 

[Starmill]

The right to a refund if a product is faulty is very basic and really should not be in question.

This was obviously not an abuse of that right, and perhaps changes in the law should be considered in future to ensure consumers are protected against unreasonably long waits for repairs to expensive goods when they are needed in the short term by extending the period of time where the customer can return a product and still be entitled to choose a refund.

 

[shredder1]

The right to a refund if a product is faulty is very basic and really should not be in question.

This was obviously not an abuse of that right, and perhaps changes in the law should be considered in future to ensure consumers are protected against unreasonably long waits for repairs to expensive goods when they are needed in the short term by extending the period of time where the customer can return a product and still be entitled to choose a refund.

Yes indeed, thank you.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Having previously worked for a catalogue company, I can attest to this. I've had customers demand to know why that little black dress they returned as "unwanted", found its way back to them (with a re-delivery charge). A quick call to the returns team usually revealed that it had been sent back with clear evidence of having been worn on a night out.

You're bringing back bad memories of working the customer service desk at a well known supermarket!

• Somebody trying to return an empty bottle of Smirnoff with no receipt claiming they didn't like the taste.
• Parents trying to return obviously used costumes the day after Halloween, with one costume in particular smelling like sugar-infused vomit.
• The lady who showed up every night for a week with a wheeled shopping basket full of branded tins and other products from Poundland and discount stores. She'd be there when I started at 3 and still be there when I clocked off at 10. Think she ended up being removed after threatening a manager.
• A gentleman threatening to call the police because I wouldn't add loyalty points from his petrol receipt. Said receipt was from the Asda up the road and not the supermarket I worked for.

I do not miss it at all!

 

[DarloRich]

The right to a refund if a product is faulty is very basic and really should not be in question.

The legislation is quite clear when a refund should be offered and in what circumstances.

If you are outside the 30 day "early rejection" period you have to give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace any goods. If the attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful, you can then claim a refund, or a price reduction if you wish to keep the product. If you've owned the item for less than six months, the retailer must give you a full refund if an attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful. That seems quite reasonable for a used product.

This was obviously not an abuse of that right, and perhaps changes in the law should be considered in future to ensure consumers are protected against unreasonably long waits for repairs to expensive goods when they are needed in the short term by extending the period of time where the customer can return a product and still be entitled to choose a refund.

OK - how long a period of time should we allow? How much is "expensive"? £150 isnt that expensive in the grand scheme of things, not that I would ever spend that much on a coat!

 

[Starmill]

The legislation is quite clear when a refund should be offered and in what circumstances.

I am aware of this, but thank you anyway for your signature mansplaining.
This has been fully established in the thread and there was no need to repeat it.

OK - how long a period of time should we allow? How much is "expensive"?

These are things for committees of experts to advise parliamentarians on. That's generally how lawmaking works. I would like to see greater focus on the rights of the consumer in this and other areas of law. This case is evidence of the need for this - not that I am claiming it is a high priority or anything. There are far more egregious anti-consumer practices out there.

 

[DarloRich]

signature mansplaining.

I am sorry but I have no idea what that means.

 

[Bromley boy]

Being told what the law says, being offered a perfectly acceptable remedy, refusing that remedy, having a paddy and stropping off is, in my mind, childish.

But being offered the legal minimum isn't a perfectly acceptable remedy from the customer's point of view. In fact it's a very poor response, especially given the time of year and the fact the jacket was quite expensive.

I am 100% with the OP on this one. He's been sold an expensive, shoddy product and I'm surprised to see someone "standing up to the man" being accused of being childish, which is more than a little harsh in my view.

PS it is also possible ( and i don't suggest that the OP would do such a thing) that the shop have had issues with people buying expensive coats, wearing them a couple of times in the cold, damaging them while claiming faulty manufacture and asking for a refund. It happens all the time.

Possibly but those people could simply return the jacket within the 30 day period for a no quibble refund. This type of behaviour is a risk any clothing retailer has to take and I'd suggest only a very small minority of customers would bother do this (and repeat offenders would be easily identified).

Outdoors jackets are not exactly "stylish" in the sense of something you might buy to wear once to an event and then return (of course I'm in no way suggesting the OP lacks style).

 

[shredder1]

But being offered the legal minimum isn't a perfectly acceptable remedy from the customer's point of view. In fact it's a very poor response, especially given the time of year and the fact the jacket was quite expensive.

I am 100% with the OP on this one. He's been sold an expensive, shoddy product and I'm surprised to see someone "standing up to the man" being accused of being childish, which is more than a little harsh in my view.



Possibly but those people could simply return the jacket within the 30 day period for a no quibble refund. This type of behaviour is a risk any clothing retailer has to take and I'd suggest only a very small minority of customers would bother do this (and repeat offenders would be easily identified).

Outdoors jackets are not exactly "stylish" in the sense of something you might buy to wear once to an event and then return (of course I'm in no way suggesting the OP lacks style).

Actually I probably do lack style

 

[Harpers Tate]

It's clear that certain contributors to this thread, and the store manager, have a far better understanding of the legal minimum obligation than they do about "goodwill". Goodwill is something that is quite hard to earn but extremely easily lost. One of the hugest successes in retailing (online in this case) is undeniably Amazon. Part of this massive success is a result of their global policy of - on the whole - immediate restitution to the customer; buy with total confidence. The customer in this case has already had any goodwill he had with the retailer thrown away by the clear and unambiguous knowledge of "the rules". And that has heped nobody.

 

[Barn]

Very well said.

Which store, if it thought about it, would want its corporate reputation to be: "they'll help you only to the absolute minimum extent required of them by law"?

Even offline, it makes a huge difference. You'd be mad to buy an item from Currys if it is also available in John Lewis.

 

[ComUtoR]

I am 100% with the OP on this one. He's been sold an expensive, shoddy product and I'm surprised to see someone "standing up to the man" being accused of being childish, which is more than a little harsh in my view.

I'm on the side of the retailer. Full disclosure; I worked in retail for many moons and as a Manager I had to deal with this kind of thing on numerous occasions. More disclosure. I was in a similar position a few days ago when I needed to refund a drum machine that was faulty. The store refused the refund and stated it had to go back to customer service due to it being over 30 days etc etc. A quick phone call later and it was refunded back in the store. Cue a very very apologetic Store Manager.

What I find a little ludicrus; and why I'm more on the side of the retailer. Why punish them ? They are just there to sell the product. Berghaus are responsible for the overpriced and shoddy product. They are the ones who don't deserve further custom. It does feel that placing all the blame on Go Outdoors and not returning to them comes across as very petulant. They sell other products there and those Brands who are selling through their store are also therefore being punished for no real reason. Berghaus provides a faulty product. Why give them your money again for the same product ? Is it because it is acceptable and understandable that products are not always perfect but a retailer must bend over backwards and give the customer anything they want regardless of the law and local policy.

I bought some Bench T-Shirts last year. A seam broke on the second wash. Suffice to say, I won't buy Bench again. Same with the Drum machine. Not buying that brand again and I'm off to Amazon to get a different one. I'm not sure I would never buy from the stores I bought either product because I didn't get the service I wanted.

 

[Barn]

What I find a little ludicrus; and why I'm more on the side of the retailer. Why punish them ? They are just there to sell the product. Berghaus are responsible for the overpriced and shoddy product. They are the ones who don't deserve further custom. It does feel that placing all the blame on Go Outdoors and not returning to them comes across as very petulant.

It is the retailer with whom the consumer has a contract. It is the retailer that takes the consumer's money. It is the retailer that has inserted itself as an intermediary between the product and the purchaser and it takes its margin for performing this customer-facing role.

Retailers should negotiate adequate terms with their supply chain (to which the consumer often doesn't have access) which allow them to offset most of the cost of faulty products. If a retailer is seriously losing out as a result of a manufacturer's products frequently failing, the solution is to stop selling that manufacturer's products.

Most reputable and successful retailers understand that customer service and dealing with faulty products is a cost of doing business and not an anomaly to be resisted at all costs.