Has it been cancelled or something? I think not but check receipts from any shop you buy stuff that has no manufacturer warranty like electronics goods do. They have a note on receipt that they only accept refunds up to 15 days after purchase. So 3 stories, 3 shops one being upper end of market two in middle yet all doing the same. About 3 months ago got a jacket from Armani, on sale so price of £120 was worth it (not original 600 not that nice). Jacket has torn along the seem after 4 weeks. Went to return they pointed at receipt saying they only accept refunds up to 15 days after purchase. I looked at women and said this is not a refund but a warranty claim. Still was having none of it. So I switched to goods not fit for purpose, defective design or manufacturing process which ever she wants I am entitled to my refund. After 20 min of arguing she called manager that tried the same tricks but at the end, 40 min later I got my money back and told them to F-off. Topman shoes two months ago, nice pair from looks and feel. Price 49.99 seemed worth it. 30 day later bottom of the shoe has collapsed and there was a big hole in the bottom as rubber cracked. Not work shoes so used maybe 5 times in that month. Looked like new till I turned it around. Same story as above just took 30 min to get my money back. Today TK Max brought back shoes I got on 1st day of August. All lovely shoes and stitched not glued so should be good. Made for Lambretta as their attire they sell on website. Leather it was made from has torn in a link, a link that is under load when you walk so clearly not fit for purpose but again had to argue for well over 30 min. Only when I got loud in front of other customers mentioning consumer protection act and how if they sell crap they are responsible for it did they cave in (probably to get rid off me ;p) Towards the end of conversation with manager girl at till asked him if she should process it then as faulty goods, he said no the store does not do faulty anymore. Is it just me or are all those shops trying to lie to people and they do not say anything shop will not take responsibility even if by law they have to. Is the fact of misleading customers not illegal process in it self? Rant done, over 90 min of my life wasted.
Or stuff is shit, made for couple quid and sold for 40 or more. Shoe zone cheap trainers I use in garage last longer and they did actually cost few quid 9.99. BTW you are aware that shoes and clothes have 3 months warranty in Germany, Poland and few other countries? Do not see much lasting over 3 months here.
If you sue the shop for the refund money they owe you, you can use the Consumer Protection Act in the court case, and if it is applicable you may well win the case. If you walk into a shop and ask for the money, they might give in and pay up. But more likely they may refuse to pay and wait to see if you really sue. If they decide your threat to sue is an empty one, because you are not willing or able, can't be bothered, or don't know how, the shop may well tell you to sod off and that is the end of the matter. The good news is that the same situation applies if someone says you owe them money which you refuse to pay. The essence of it is that the law applies in court, or if there is a credible threat to go to court, just as it always has done.
Pete, Duc when I first walked in to all shops I wanted exchange. I got pissed off at Armani as they were not even trying to listen. 15 days good by. In Armani I got refund at end as they could not offer me other jacket as exchange due to not having anything for 120 I guess. TopMann I got another pair of shoes and so did TK. In link that Ducbird posted says they are responsible for fixing or repairing and it even states 6 months so 15 days a bit of joke. I know there is fair wear and tear that is why I do never claim work stuff due to using it 5 times a week for certain things. But shoes used one time a week for a month should not just rip if were any good.
When did you buy them and when did you take them back was it as soon as you noticed or when you got the time ;-)
A 15 days returns policy is generous as there is no legal right of return just because you have canged your mind. A 15 days returns policy for good that are faulty is a breach of your rights. In the event that goods are faulty there is no time limit other than what would be a reasonable expectation, or words to that effect. There is also the Small Claims Court route for claims up to £5000. I was sued once in the SCC, he lost, but it did involve a day in court which was quite an interesting experience.
Well jacket ASAP as I was at Oxford street on day it happened (or day I noticed). TopMann like 2 days after I noticed and TK I noticed on Saturday so went today so all in good time me thinks. Issue here is all of the shops did not even want to take the goods to look at them at first. Just pointing to 15 day note on receipt. Only after pushing they did start doing something and more pushing was involved to get them to actually act as in give me another pair of the same shoes or store credit for that amount. I did not change my mind in any case all items developed fault. All within less then a month. To keep things in perspective those shoes from TK Maxx I got them at the same time I got my work shoes that I use 5 times a week. Guess what work shoes are still all good just look bit tired which is fair wear and tear as used daily. Shoes used 4 or 5 times in the same month ripped.
I think those stores know what they should do but will not admit to it until you push them and that I think is braking the law. They by cheap stuff and sell off as expensive they should factor in higher number of returns and not just kick people out.
I don't think they are breaking the law by denying you your rights (see Pete's post above) but they certainly aren't doing their reputation any good (do they have one for anything other than being cheap ?).
TK Maxx or Armani John I was raised and then lived by it at work. You stand by your product and provide good customer service. None of which happened in 3 stores mentioned.
You have got to be kidding, Lucasz! Some types of business prosper by building up a loyal base of repeat customers (e.g. Marks & Spencers, McDonalds), but we must face the facts - most businesses are simply aiming to separate you from your money while providing as little as possible in return. Complaints, returns, warranty claims etc are simply a drag on profits. RyanAir is a famous example of a successful business run on these lines. Best policy for us as customers for clothes is to examine what we are buying very carefully (material, fit, seams, zips, pockets, etc etc) before paying. Only pay if we are sure the level of quality corresponds to the price, and to our needs. Otherwise we put it back and go somewhere else. If our decision to buy was a bad one, that is mainly our fault. [The situation for durables (electronics, washing machines) is quite different because we cannot check the item before buying.]
I am sorry Pete but I must ask the same are you kidding? Any item, I repeat any item or service you bought can have hidden fault that you can not inspect at time of purchase. Even food can have hidden faults you will not be able to spot. Bottle of milk that has faulty cap so it did not lock properly. You open new milk to see it gone off. Hidden fault. Seems made from inferior stitching and so on. I wonder if you would say the same if your new dianese jacket fell apart at seems a month after you bought it? It is by our, customer will that companies like Ryanair operate the way they do. Many people that fly Ryanair will not complain because they think it was cheap enough to not complain (what you pay for is what you get). Most of the rest is stopped by stupid complaint line charges. However cheap or not item needs to be safe, fit for purpose and deliver what it says it does. Also Ryanair was told to stop that stupid complaint line so now they do fax, mail or email.
In this thread, it seems you are focussed on the ideal world you would like to see, Lucasz, whilst I am referring to the real world we live in with all its faults. We agree really! My point was that one common business model is to do the absolute minimum you are legally forced to so, and I'm afraid that is often a successful business model, especially in the short term. If you are saying that all businesses "ought" to meet all their legal obligations without being forced to, well you can take that view if you like but it rarely corresponds to the real world. The bottom line is that if anyone goes to a shop and applies for an exchange, refund, warranty claim, etc they had better have a plan B. What are they going to do if the shop says no?
I get you but that way of thinking is then part of the problem in favour of business. In perfect world it should be businesses that afraid of clients just like governments afraid of citizens but it is not happening. However saying that's how it is the same like people saying I am not going to vote nothing will change or not going to speak to my local MP nothing will change. As it is because companies miss inform customers about their rights most customers think big company would not lie to them and go along with it. Few that go to shop to execute rights run a risk of being said no, plan B is to get noisy then plan C all depends how resilient you are. However if all people did execute their rights correctly such company would go under or change.
