50 comments Add a comment
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
Leave a comment
Having a WH Smith branded item with "the remains" of price sticker on, doesn't in itself prove that you purchased it, or how much you paid. It's common practice for stores applying discounts to add a new sticker and not remove the old sticker, so with no receipt or bank evidence, the remains of a price sticker doesn't really mean anything.
£17.99 - £14.99 = £3, so asking for £3.99 in addition to a direct replacment isn't even good arithmetic.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
Misty