Consumer Rights

[ComUtoR]

I am in agreement but there is also a point where, as a consumer, you make a conscious decision about the product you buy. As a parent I got sick of buying cheap shoes that fall apart within a term. Do I blame the retailer and seek a refund each time or do I make a decision and swallow the cost of a pair of DMs ?

Do I buy another Lenovo tablet and suffer its poor quality or buy a Galaxy TAB ? It doesn't matter if I buy it from Currys or John Lewis (John Lewis wins for the exact reasons posted) The product is very important. Granted I'm gonna buy from John Lewis because Currys is an overpriced gouge with exceptionally poor customer service. However, why cut my nose to spite my, gorgeous, face; if there is something that I want from Currys. ? I can't blame Currys for selling me a crappy printer. I blame HP.

 

[Bromley boy]

They are just there to sell the product. Berghaus are responsible for the overpriced and shoddy product.

Thing is it is the retailer who has sold the product, and who the customer has contracted with. The retailer should then seek redress from the manufacture. The onus is on the retailer to ensure they stock good quality ranges.

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.

It’s not necessarily about bending over backwards, and it shouldn’t be. I think you need to look at the facts in each case. If someone bought a primark t-shirt and expected a refund when it went out of shape after a couple of wears, that would be ridiculous. The OP spent quite a bit on an outdoors coat which you would expect to last a lot longer than a few wears.

If the OP expected a refund or replacement after 5 years, I agree this would be quite unreasonable.

 

[Bromley boy]

I can't blame Currys for selling me a crappy printer. I blame HP.

I’d blame Curry’s for not caring enough about their customers to stock good quality lines.

Then I’d head for the nearest Apple store (or buy the lenovo from John Lewis!).

 

[ComUtoR]

Thing is it is the retailer who has sold the product, and who the customer has contracted with. The retailer should then seek redress from the manufacture. The onus is on the retailer to ensure they stock good quality ranges.

It is and in a fair number of cases this is what happens. The retailer does have a contract and that should be adhered to. I agree in that. But that contract does only extend so far. If the retailer acts within that contract then they shouldn't be castigated or unreasonably threatened for adhering to it. It does seem that consumers want the retailer to go beyond that. Very much to a cake and eat it scenario. That I don't agree with.

Should there be good will ? Certainly. Should the retailer go above and beyond ? Certainly. That is what makes a good retailer. That does generate return custom. Should that be at the expense of the retailer ? Crikey no. Retail is dying for a reason. Part of that is they cannot maintain margins and cannot maintain stock suitable to the growing consumer needs. Manufacturers hold retail stores to ransom and the retailer will swallow the costs. All this does is drive prices higher.

It’s not necessarily about bending over backwards, and it shouldn’t be. I think you need to look at the facts in each case. If someone bought a primark t-shirt and expected a refund when it went out of shape after a couple of wears, that would be ridiculous. The OP spent quite a bit on an outdoors coat which you would expect to last a lot longer than a few wears.

'Of Merchantable Quality' springs to mind. Conversely there are people who will buy a £5 kettle and expect it to last the next few years and demand a refund and kick up a fuss when it is denied. It is certainly not limited to price and quality. There is an expectation that the 'good will' and 'customer service' extends to everything. I once had a customer demand a refund on a set of batteries because she used them every night and they didn't last to the expire date :/

If the OP expected a refund or replacement after 5 years, I agree this would be quite unreasonable.

£150 for a coat, designed for hard wearing. I would expect it to last beyond 5 years but naturally wear out. £150 and I would not expect or accept a faulty zip. And yes, again, people will expect a refund after that amount of time and demand it under the guise of 'customer service'

What my main point is. Why buy from the same brand knowing that you just had a fault, and then punish the retailer for it ? Buy a North Face one instead.

 

[ComUtoR]

I’d blame Curry’s for not caring enough about their customers to stock good quality lines.

Then I’d head for the nearest Apple store (or buy the lenovo from John Lewis!).

But if its the same printer in both shops...

John Lewis is a prime example of having great customer service. However, they are still acting within their own policy. I got a 5yr guarantee on my Tellybox that would have cost me £250 from Currys. John Lewis all the way. But if I returned 5yrs later they would refund it without question because it is policy, not specifically because they are providing better service. They just take the hit because of their buying power. Reputation is important from them so quite often they front end the margin in the retail price.

My new knife set I got from Amazon. £200 cheaper than retail. Even John Lewis lost out.

My point with the Lenovo is that the tablet is crap. Why buy another Lenovo :/ Why blame Currys for that when the same product is sold elsewhere. Buy a different brand. Lenovo sucks.

 

[Barn]

My point with the Lenovo is that the tablet is crap. Why buy another Lenovo :/ Why blame Currys for that when the same product is sold elsewhere. Buy a different brand. Lenovo sucks.

That may be true (not an expert on tablets) but if it is well known that a tablet is crap, and a store sells it anyway, it shouldn't be surprised if people complain. If it is cheap, you win sales by stocking a cheaper item. Part of the cost of that is that you have to deal with the crap afterwards. The store needs to calculate how many it thinks it'll sell, how likely it is to provoke complaints, and then decide at what price to sell it and whether it is worth stocking at all. Making these decisions is what being a retailer is all about.

 

[Bromley boy]

The retailer does have a contract and that should be adhered to. I agree in that. But that contract does only extend so far. If the retailer acts within that contract then they shouldn't be castigated or unreasonably threatened for adhering to it. It does seem that consumers want the retailer to go beyond that. Very much to a cake and eat it scenario. That I don't agree with.

Well yes, but the minimum legal protection given to consumers is just that, the minimum. I think there’s a middle ground between having a legitimate expectation of a retailer exercising discretion and offering goodwill over and above the legal minimum, and someone who is taking the mick, at the other extreme.

The OP’s example strikes me as a retailer hiding behind the technicality of the 30 day return/refund legal minimum protection.

It is and in a fair number of cases this is what happens. The retailer does have a contract and that should be adhered to. I agree in that. But that contract does only extend so far. If the retailer acts within that contract then they shouldn't be castigated or unreasonably threatened for adhering to it. It does seem that consumers want the retailer to go beyond that. Very much to a cake and eat it scenario. That I don't agree with.

Should there be good will ? Certainly. Should the retailer go above and beyond ? Certainly. That is what makes a good retailer. That does generate return custom. Should that be at the expense of the retailer ? Crikey no.

How does this work in practice? In the OP’s case would the retailer take the hit? Maybe at a de minimis level of one or two jackets. If they received a faulty batch of coats, resulting in lots of returns from customers they would surely seek redress against the manufacture?

I suppose the argument here would be that the retailer is in a better position than the consumers to know which products are high quality and which aren’t. It’s down to them to make a judgement on which products are of a good enough quality for them to stock.

here is an expectation that the 'good will' and 'customer service' extends to everything. I once had a customer demand a refund on a set of batteries because she used them every night and they didn't last to the expire date :/

That is plainly ridiculous - I hope you told her where to stick it?!

£150 for a coat, designed for hard wearing. I would expect it to last beyond 5 years but naturally wear out. £150 and I would not expect or accept a faulty zip. And yes, again, people will expect a refund after that amount of time and demand it under the guise of 'customer service'

What my main point is. Why buy from the same brand knowing that you just had a fault, and then punish the retailer for it ? Buy a North Face one instead.

I agree and in the OP’s case I would probably want a refund and then use it to buy an equivalent product from a better manufacture. On the other hand, if it was a brand I’d had good experience with previously, I might take the view that the fault was just a one off and give them another chance.

Also agreed that Lenovo are utterly rubbish!

 

[Darandio]

My point with the Lenovo is that the tablet is crap. Why buy another Lenovo :/ Why blame Currys for that when the same product is sold elsewhere. Buy a different brand. Lenovo sucks.

Have to disagree on Lenovo. The youngest has had a Lenovo tablet for 13 months now, it's been pretty bulletproof considering the thing is near enough permanently being used. Then we have two Lenovo laptops, one was bought for my partner in September 2016 and was so impressive that we bought the same model for my oldest that Christmas. Both have been used intensively, they perform everything asked of them and there have been no issues.

Of course with things such as tablets and laptops, a lot depends on the individual and their requirements.

 

[ComUtoR]

That may be true (not an expert on tablets) but if it is well known that a tablet is crap, and a store sells it anyway, it shouldn't be surprised if people complain. If it is cheap, you win sales by stocking a cheaper item. Part of the cost of that is that you have to deal with the crap afterwards. The store needs to calculate how many it thinks it'll sell, how likely it is to provoke complaints, and then decide at what price to sell it and whether it is worth stocking at all. Making these decisions is what being a retailer is all about.

Again, I totally agree. Retailers need to take that responsibility. That does not mean that the consumer shouldn't make an informed choice in what they buy. Why would anyone consistently buy from a brand that is consistently faulty. One of the ways in which a retailer will decide what to stock, is through sales. If the consumer buys it then sell it. If a consumer stops buying a certain brand then that will reflect in the sales. That pushes the retailer to then make a decision not to sell it. You constantly hear on the consumer shows that the power is in the consumer. The consumer drives what the retailer sells.

The OP’s example strikes me as a retailer hiding behind the technicality of the 30 day return/refund legal minimum protection.

Sometimes you never had a choice. The manufacturer provides the store with its product expecting them to adhere to their policies. If the retailer decides to refund it then they often take the hit. Sending products back to the manufacturer is part of the stores contract with them. They can fix/replace items at a considerably cheaper cost. There were times when the manufacturer/distribute etc just plainly refused to refund back to the store because we didn't follow the correct procedures and policies.

That is plainly ridiculous - I hope you told her where to stick it?!

Ridiculous but they were still refunded. Customer service and goodwill gets her money back. We took the hit.

I agree and in the OP’s case I would probably want a refund and then use it to buy an equivalent product from a better manufacture. On the other hand, if it was a brand I’d had good experience with previously, I might take the view that the fault was just a one off and give them another chance.

Agreed. We tend to give latitude to our favorite brands and accept faulty products. I've personally had 5 kindles. Sheer bad luck but I will never buy another one and I really want one

I would absolutely go to another brand. A poor experience with any product means that we tend to lean towards a more reputable company. I'm in the market for a new telly but my Toshiba is now considered low end and they have dropped out the market. I won't buy Samsung (ask the well known cyclist Mr L at my depot for his personal experience) Brand power is important. I find it difficult to place blame on the retailer for a shoddy product. They are there for the margins and make commercial decisions on what to sell.

For me, the retailer does have responsibility too but nowdays they have little impact on my buying choices. The refund policies are there for everyone to see and if I didn't like the policy then I wouldn't shop there. However, I would still respect that policy if something went wrong. It protects both retailer and consumer alike. Retailers got strict with their policies because they got abused, and still are. My battery example is typical of how the consumer sees 'customer service'

One of the stores I worked at had a refund policy that you could, and potentially still can, get a permanent refresh of any product you wanted because you can use it and then refund it for a new one using their 'no quibble' refund policy.

Also agreed that Lenovo are utterly rubbish!

I put my trust in a well known brand. Paid a bit over the top and it broke. Not sure that's Currys fault tbh.

 

[Tom B]

Personally, I would assume / hope that a well known company which spends a lot of money on branding would go a little further than the legal minimum. A dodgy back street place with discount prices, perhaps not.

It also depends on the market you're in - are your customers regulars who spend money with you daily/weekly/monthly, or are they passing trade, tourists etc who you'll never see again? A business will worry more about customer satisfaction in the former case than the latter. In fact, there's a shop I regularly go to, even if the price is slightly higher for the item in question, because I would rather use a trusted place I regularly go to than save a quid elsewhere.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Why punish them ?

My point is, they have achieved that for themselves here.

 

[Busaholic]

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.

Went back to Curry's when a kettle I'd bought about 10 months previously gave up the ghost, With minimum fuss they replaced with a brand new version: another ten or eleven months later, same thing happened, so I went back expecting some resistance. Far from it, they not only replaced it again but said, because it was now on 'special offer' they were crediting me with £20! Brilliant, I know I've got an honest face and winning ways () but even so! Result - when I wanted a new dishwasher, and given prices were broadly similar, I ordered it from Curry's.

 

[Barn]

Went back to Curry's when a kettle I'd bought about 10 months previously gave up the ghost, With minimum fuss they replaced with a brand new version: another ten or eleven months later, same thing happened, so I went back expecting some resistance. Far from it, they not only replaced it again but said, because it was now on 'special offer' they were crediting me with £20! Brilliant, I know I've got an honest face and winning ways () but even so! Result - when I wanted a new dishwasher, and given prices were broadly similar, I ordered it from Curry's.

That's good news. Sounds like they have turned over a new leaf at some point since I last shopped with them (which was probably about 2006).

 

[shredder1]

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.

"They are just there to sell the product".
I think you missed the bit about also making profit and keeping customers happy enough to want to return. Although I largely accept what you are saying, I was dealing with Go Outdoors and not Berghaust directly. Go Outdoors are hardly puppets, they can think and act for themselves.

 

[ComUtoR]

Again, I agree. Berghaus gets a free pass as they can hide behind the retailer. Large brands often have a vast amount of power over the retailers.

Whilst you aren't dealing with Berghaus directly, it was their jacket and their fault. Go Outdoors act as the intermediary between you and the manufacturer. Yep they take a slice of the profits and yes they take a hit on the costs too but if you had to deal directly with Berghaus directly you may have found that process a lot more problematic.

I found in my years in the retail sector that they are treated with such disdain and disrespect by the customer and its often unfairly placed.

Consider the entire process.

Customer brings item to staff member
Staff member acts on the refund policy. Exactly as they are required to do.
Customer wants a different resolution.
Staff member escalates to Manager/Supervisor. The customer is reminded of the refund policy and potentially given an alternative option. The Manager tries to balance the policy and the customer.
Customer wants a different resolution. Cries foul, threatens legal action, stamps their feet, cries like a baby, complains to watchdog, etc etc.

Everyone seems to forget that it is the product that is faulty. They will blame the retailer for everything and walk off with the same, product, with potentially the same fault. This has a negative effect on the retailer. It also has a negative effect on the other products that retailer sells, especially somewhere like Go Outdoors who sell a variety of products from different brands. Overall its a negative outcome for all. On a fair number of occasions when I sold clothes. We would get a chargeback for a refund because the manufacturer had 'no fault found' or pureluy because we didn't refer the customer back to them as required by our own policy.

The situation has switched somewhat as things move online. Faults, crappy products etc are the subject of reviews. A singe scathing review of a product means that no one buys it or is hesitant to. This has a negative effect on the item being sold. Quite often it leads to recalls and updates. The brand itself doesn't suffer (unless they get known for poor quality for everything) as its more specific to a product and it encourages them to make a better version. Amazon still gets used for other products and overall it has a positive impact.

I can almost guarantee that your view of Berghaus has barely changed (you bought a replacement) and you haven't make any comment or review about Berghaus providing you with a faulty jacket. That is what I find odd.

 

[headshot119]

Have to disagree on Lenovo. The youngest has had a Lenovo tablet for 13 months now, it's been pretty bulletproof considering the thing is near enough permanently being used. Then we have two Lenovo laptops, one was bought for my partner in September 2016 and was so impressive that we bought the same model for my oldest that Christmas. Both have been used intensively, they perform everything asked of them and there have been no issues.

Of course with things such as tablets and laptops, a lot depends on the individual and their requirements.

I used to work for a retailer in inventory and dealing with customer returns and repairs, saw far too much of Lenovo, it's cheap, it's fairly badly built. But if you get one that works they're cheerful.

 

[Bromley boy]

Everyone seems to forget that it is the product that is faulty. They will blame the retailer for everything and walk off with the same, product, with potentially the same fault.

Yeah yeah.

If the engine drops out of the jag, you’ll be straight round to the dealership .

 

[ComUtoR]

Yeah yeah.

If the engine drops out of the jag, you’ll be straight round to the dealership .

My warranty is with the dealership

There is a reason why I didn't buy a different motor and why I choose to get another Jag. That faith in the brand superceedes any dealership. What I did do however, was to buy it from a dealer of my choice. The initial one I went to kinda upset me. They lost my custom, in the same way that shredder has decided against returning to Go Outdoors.

If she was faulty, I couldn't go back and demand a refund on the spot. They would activate the warranty, order a part from Jaguar, repair at cost etc. They would, just as much as Go Outdoors did, follow their policy and that's as far as they would go, maybe some will go further. Not sure I could scream and cry and demand a refund and threaten them with legal action.

Disclosure and a interesting side note...... Shes had 3 faults so far. All resolved without question, although I did have to wait a week for a replacement part. The interesting side note is that if I didn't like it, for whatever reason, I could return it if it was under 1,000 miles for a full refund.

Branded stores have much more success with control over their products and when they get returned. Annoyingly if you buy from an outlet the item still needs to be returned to the outlet, they are very strict with that too.

 

[shredder1]

Again, I agree. Berghaus gets a free pass as they can hide behind the retailer. Large brands often have a vast amount of power over the retailers.

Whilst you aren't dealing with Berghaus directly, it was their jacket and their fault. Go Outdoors act as the intermediary between you and the manufacturer. Yep they take a slice of the profits and yes they take a hit on the costs too but if you had to deal directly with Berghaus directly you may have found that process a lot more problematic.

I found in my years in the retail sector that they are treated with such disdain and disrespect by the customer and its often unfairly placed.

Consider the entire process.

Customer brings item to staff member
Staff member acts on the refund policy. Exactly as they are required to do.
Customer wants a different resolution.
Staff member escalates to Manager/Supervisor. The customer is reminded of the refund policy and potentially given an alternative option. The Manager tries to balance the policy and the customer.
Customer wants a different resolution. Cries foul, threatens legal action, stamps their feet, cries like a baby, complains to watchdog, etc etc.

Everyone seems to forget that it is the product that is faulty. They will blame the retailer for everything and walk off with the same, product, with potentially the same fault. This has a negative effect on the retailer. It also has a negative effect on the other products that retailer sells, especially somewhere like Go Outdoors who sell a variety of products from different brands. Overall its a negative outcome for all. On a fair number of occasions when I sold clothes. We would get a chargeback for a refund because the manufacturer had 'no fault found' or pureluy because we didn't refer the customer back to them as required by our own policy.

The situation has switched somewhat as things move online. Faults, crappy products etc are the subject of reviews. A singe scathing review of a product means that no one buys it or is hesitant to. This has a negative effect on the item being sold. Quite often it leads to recalls and updates. The brand itself doesn't suffer (unless they get known for poor quality for everything) as its more specific to a product and it encourages them to make a better version. Amazon still gets used for other products and overall it has a positive impact.

I can almost guarantee that your view of Berghaus has barely changed (you bought a replacement) and you haven't make any comment or review about Berghaus providing you with a faulty jacket. That is what I find odd.

I`ve used Berghaus, and never had an issue, oh course they`ll get it wrong at times. My issue is with the store and how I was dealt with, please try to understand this before one of us dies

 

[shredder1]

Update, just got a new jacket from Amazon, £50 cheaper too, well done Amazon thank you Go Outdoors for causing me loads of hassle and wasted petrol money and time. I`ve learned my lesson

 

[DarloRich]

i still wonder what grounds you sued to threaten legal action. Could you let us know?

 

[shredder1]

i still wonder what grounds you sued to threaten legal action. Could you let us know?

Wouldnt have a clue, I had back up mate

 

[shredder1]

Blimey! Go Outdoors have just sent me a new catalogue with some sales bargains in, think I`ll call on the way home from work, try them on for size and buy them on Amazon

 

[GatwickDepress]

Wouldnt have a clue, I had back up mate

What do you mean 'back up?' Winky faces are quite an annoying answer.

 

[shredder1]

What do you mean 'back up?' Winky faces are quite an annoying answer.

Sorry Depressed, solicitors in the family.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My issue is with the store and how I was dealt with

The law doesn't allow you to demand a refund. The 30-day limit to demand a refund is new: before that, it was a "reasonable period" after purchase.

I'm surprised the shop didn't just give you your money back and reclaim the cost off Berghaus, because life would have been easier for them. Good customer service goes beyond the basic legal minimum. But throwing around unjustified threats of litigation just makes you look silly. You're lucky you got a manager who wants an easy life. My sister is a manager for a large national clothes retailer and she digs her heels in when people get all lawyerly like this. She enjoys the sport.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm surprised the shop didn't just give you your money back and reclaim the cost off Berghaus, because life would have been easier for them. Good customer service goes beyond the basic legal minimum. But throwing around unjustified threats of litigation just makes you look silly. You're lucky you got a manager who wants an easy life. My sister is a manager for a large national clothes retailer and she digs her heels in when people get all lawyerly like this. She enjoys the sport.

The problem is, sometimes you have to throw around threats of litigation for some stores to actually give you your legal rights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised the shop didn't just give you your money back and reclaim the cost off Berghaus, because life would have been easier for them. Good customer service goes beyond the basic legal minimum. But throwing around unjustified threats of litigation just makes you look silly. You're lucky you got a manager who wants an easy life. My sister is a manager for a large national clothes retailer and she digs her heels in when people get all lawyerly like this. She enjoys the sport.

Yep, I work like that too (in life generally). Ask me nicely and I'll go well above and beyond to help you. Demand your rights and you will get precisely that - your bare minimum legal rights and not one little bit more.

 

[shredder1]

The law doesn't allow you to demand a refund. The 30-day limit to demand a refund is new: before that, it was a "reasonable period" after purchase.

I'm surprised the shop didn't just give you your money back and reclaim the cost off Berghaus, because life would have been easier for them. Good customer service goes beyond the basic legal minimum. But throwing around unjustified threats of litigation just makes you look silly. You're lucky you got a manager who wants an easy life. My sister is a manager for a large national clothes retailer and she digs her heels in when people get all lawyerly like this. She enjoys the sport.

Cheers Troll, yes exactly, a silly way to do business isnt it, I was hardly lucky though mate, they made me wait two weeks without a coat if you re-read my posts, I took action after they dug their heels in. Trying to make me wait 30 days after being sold faulty goods is not reasonably to me, nor good buisness practice, I feel I had been more than reasonable under the circumstances, especially since I`ve been a loyal customer for years.

 

[shredder1]

Yep, I work like that too (in life generally). Ask me nicely and I'll go well above and beyond to help you. Demand your rights and you will get precisely that - your bare minimum legal rights and not one little bit more.

I totally agree, being polite and good manners cost nothing and moves mountains, especially when you are dealing with the people who support you, I didnt even recieve an apology. I treat people exactly the same way I expect to be treated myself and I too will go above on beyond.