Proof of purchase and receipts

My new gripe is about retailer logic for requesting proof of purchase.   For example, I bought a paper shredder from WH Smiths in October 2008 for around 17.99.  It worked OK for a while, but didn't after a while.  So I took it back for a refund.

By that time, I'd lost my proof of purchase, the receipt.  This was unfortunate, but I didn't think it would matter because the shredder was engraved with WH Smith's logo, embedded in the plastic, so it couldn't have come from elsewhere.  The remains of a sticker for 17.99 was also attached.

I took it to an assistant, who told me, quite explicitly, that she had the authority to deal with this transaction. She immediately walked off for ten minutes, without explanation, and returned with the manager.  Clearly, she had no authority at all. Mistake 1 - here we go!  Mr Manager then agreed that I could only replace it for another one, but I wasn't entitled to a refund or vouchers for the full value without my receipt as proof of purchase.  I saw another one, but it was reduced to 14.99 in the sale.  I said I would only a straight replacement if I was refunded with cash or vouchers worth 3.99.  After all, I had paid 17.99 for it, not 14.99.

I still couldn't find the receipt but did find an old bank statement that equated to this transaction

Mr Manager flatly refused.  It was a straight swap or nothing.  No vouchers worth 17.99, no cash refund.  With smoke coming out of my ears - Mistake 2 - I told him to "stick it" and took the old one home again.  Then I hunted around for proof of purchase.  I still couldn't find the receipt but did find an old bank statement that equated to this transaction.

You may know that bank statements don't prove anything.  They specify that unnamed goods, worth 'x' amount was purchased at retailer 'y' on 'z' date.  It doesn't specify what exactly was purchased.  I could have bought a book in WH Smith for 17.99 on the said date, not a shredder.

Nevertheless, I did ring WH Smith back and asked another assistant if this could be be an acceptable alternative to a receipt for 'proof of purchase.'  She said yes.

This is daft.  I took the old shredder back and got a full cash refund for 17.99 plus a fistful of discount vouchers for books over a tenner.

By: GrumpyOldWoman

Comments from visitors

Post a comment

I think an offer of a replacment was resonable. To me you were unreasonable in demanding your money back. you needed a shredder it proved to be faulty so why not take the replacment you still need a shredder.

-2

 Click to rate   Report

Chubb - 10-Oct-11 23:53 

I don.t know why you are getting you knickers in a twist when you are in the wrong. The onus is on you to provide proof of purchase. I work in a store and you are wrong when you say if it is own brand it could have only come from that store chain. Items could have been taken from the store and returned for a fraudulent refund, the items could have been taken from some ones skip etc. The reason a bank statement can be used it because this proves you made a purchase on a certain date. From the bank statement information the store can look up you transaction details and receipt.

-2

 Click to rate   Report

garybournemouth - 16-Aug-11 17:49 

'Freddie' is quite right, no retailer is under any obligation to accept returned goods however most do so in the interests of maintaining good customer relations.

A warranty period is irrelevant as far as consumer protection legislation is concerned however, the goods simply have to be of 'merchantable quality' and one measure of this is how long they fulfill their intended function. For example a £5 watch may only last a year and still be acceptable however a £5,000 watch that failed after 2 years would most likely be regarded as substandard and the purchaser entitled to a refund whatever the manufacturer or retailer's guarantee.

Certain sectors however have fought long and hard to obfuscate and frustrate these general principles. The car industry is probably the most notable example where some manufacturers have spent vast sums of money fighting claims for 'defective goods', maintaining that it is somehow acceptable to endlessly repair (read bodge) rather than simply handing the customer back his money and accepting their failure with good grace.

'Proof of purchase' need not necessarily be the retailer's receipt. An extract from a credit card or bank statement is perfectly good 'proof'.

+2

 Click to rate   Report

Manx Hound - 22-Dec-09 16:57 

To clarify this for you, you have absolutely no entitlement to anything at all unless the goods are faulty. This is determined by the sale of goods act. If faulty, and within warranty, then a retailer is obliged to offer a refund if requested but can insist on seeing a proof of purchase. That is quite reasonable really.
Too many people think they can just return un-wanted items to shops. Why should shops suffer this burden? Prices are set at a rate that allows for the loss caused from returns. If people bought the right thing first time I'm convinced that prices would be lower across the board.

+1

 Click to rate   Report

Freddie - 22-Dec-09 10:25 

If you don't return the receipt, there is a always a chance somebody else might find your lost receipt and then pretend to be you and try to get a refund. This is one reason why stores are hesitant to replace or refund an item if you can't find your receipt.

-3

 Click to rate   Report

El Tigre - 23-Sep-09 11:54 

Hadn't noticed that one; that comment at 18:35 yesterday wasn't me either! However, they do have a point!

+3

 Click to rate   Report

grumpyoldwoman - 13-Aug-09 08:43 

Shrikishan is definitely a few watts short of a light bulb.

+2

 Click to rate   Report

MikeP - 12-Aug-09 19:54 

shrikishan, I do not understand, If you wish to aquire a credit card why do you want a complete stranger to contact you?

+3

 Click to rate   Report

grumpyoldwoman - 12-Aug-09 18:35 

I want make a virgin credit card please contact me on it 9251633945 and e mail kishans@rocketmail.com

-3

 Click to rate   Report

shrikishan - 12-Aug-09 18:22 

It is a misconception that the customer is always right, in this day and age, the customers quite often are over demanding and rude to staff who are by no means just other people doing a job to earn a living. If an item is faulty then please take it back to the shop that you bought it from, you can expect an exchange for the same value that you paid originally and for the same type of item but why should you get a refund as you have already used it for a few days before the sale? I work in a shop and believe me it is infuriating having to deal with demanding and rude customers. Common sense and ethical values should be brought back and we will all be the happier for it.

+4

 Click to rate   Report

Clarite - 22-Jul-09 23:17 

What the hell have celebrities got to do with this? I think you're the one who's misguided here; you seem to be under the impression that you're more important than the rest of us, and therefore shouldn't be subject to the store policies which the vast majority have to fall under. Newsflash - you're a consumer who isn't in the public eye, so therefore you're no better or worse than anyone else who that policy would apply to. Get over it. If you want to get special treatment - become an MP!

-2

 Click to rate   Report

Mallory - 1-Jul-09 10:34 

I think you're very misguided. In this day and age, when celebrity and cult status is at such a peak, do you honesty believe that some big nob or famous person with the same problem as I outlined in my article would get treated as I did.

How do you think MPs got away with fiddling and exploiting the expenses rules?

We live in a strictly hierachical society - those that aren't well known, important or powerful are not judged on their honesty or truthfulness.We all treated like robots with policies that are based on the crude notion that we're all potential criminals.

-1

 Click to rate   Report

Grumpy xx - 26-Jun-09 19:21 

OK, well put it this way. If the manager was found out to have authorised this transaction without the production of a receipt, he could have faced trouble from Head Office. Would you really expect him to risk that for the sake of a customer who told him to "stick it"?

Also, the presence of a sticker doesn't necessarily mean that's what you paid - there could have been a reduced price tag on the shelf but not the product. Without the receipt, there was no proof of when you bought it. And may I point out that in your original gripe you don't say anywhere about the manager believing you...

At the end of the day, they're following store policy and you expected to be above that. Then you moan when you're not given special treatment.

+1

 Click to rate   Report

Mallory - 26-Jun-09 09:49 

There was a purchase sticker on the item with the date on it - it was heavily sealed down and couldn't be removed without tearing it. The cashier looked it up and saw that the price was £17.99 when I first bought it and, what's more the manager believed me. So what you say isn't right. But they still wanted my receipt. That's what annoyed me. I gave them every assistance yet they still behaved like bureaucratic monsters.

0

 Click to rate   Report

Grumpy xx - 25-Jun-09 21:29 

Of course they've got something to do with your gripe Grumpy xx - the bottom line is few retailers will give a cash refund (or top-up refund) without production of a receipt, which is exactly what you were trying to get WH Smiths to do:

"Mr Manager then agreed that I could only replace it for another one, but I wasn't entitled to a refund or vouchers for the full value without my receipt as proof of purchase. I saw another one, but it was reduced to £ 14.99 in the sale. I said I would only a straight replacement if I was refunded with cash or vouchers worth £3.99. After all, I had paid £17.99 for it, not £14.99."

This is what you SAY you paid, but as the price had then changed, there was no proof that you actually HAD paid £17.99. Hence, you were offered a straight swap, which the manager was well within his rights to do, and not offer you a 'top-up' of the remainder.

-5

 Click to rate   Report

Mallory - 24-Jun-09 09:00 

I fail to see how any of these a latest comments have anything to do with my gripe I bought the shredder back because it was faulty, not because I broke it. Don't forget I later bought another from the same shop too.

Why would a receipt be any help to retailers that are asked to give a refund for an item of clothing bought on Saturday for a night out and returned on Monday. If I was the retailer, I still wouldn't give a refund, in those circumstances. Clearly, these purchases are using your store as a clothing library not a retailer.

+1

 Click to rate   Report

Grumpy xx - 22-Jun-09 19:15 

Baffled, so was I!! (Baffled that is). Then I realised you mean GrumpyOld Woman (the original poster) and not me! (I did have the name first!)

+4

 Click to rate   Report

grumpyoldwoman - 22-Jun-09 15:40 

I worked in retail for years before escaping, and in every store the policy was 'no receipt = no cash refund'. If someone came in without a receipt and wanted a like-for-like exchange, we'd examine the returned item and if it wasn't badly damaged (unless that was the reason for returning and not the customer's fault) then we'd happily exchange. But never would we do a cash refund unless a valid receipt was produced. Why the Grumpy woman feels she'd be an exception to what is standard retail policy is beyond me!

-2

 Click to rate   Report

Baffled - 22-Jun-09 15:09 

Piggo, I agree with you there. I used to manage a clothing shop years ago (decades in fact!).

We had "customers" who would try to use us as a hire service; buying something on Saturday morning, wearing it Saturday night, and then bringing it back Monday morning for a refund. Most of the time they didn't even wash it! I got very tough about not giving refunds.

+1

 Click to rate   Report

grumpyoldwoman - 22-Jun-09 11:37 

I worked in retail for 20 years, and due to customers attempting fraud , and others who consistantly buy , then return goods on a regular basis expecting a refund even though they have no POP and clearly used them .(why should a retailer accept used goods with no fault, no box etc.?) , those who steal them and try to return them and get a cash refund. Also don't forget, if a Manager takes back faulty / incomplete stock, this will affect their bottom line profit and ultimately, the Managers' bonus payment . I dont agree or disagree with your comment, just thought I would explain the view from the other side .(in my experience)

-1

 Click to rate   Report

Piggo - 22-Jun-09 10:31