Tweet
Scenario.
Ladies fashion shop retailing mother of the bride outfits. Lady visits with her husband. Tries on loads of outfits in a smallish fitting room where she can show the outfits to her husband and to inspect them in front of massive mirrors along 3 sides of the room.
She tries on loads of them and finally settles on one she loves and which she chose carefully and in the presence of her husband. She also chose matching shoes and bag to go with it.
There is ample time to inspect the outfit, and even the sales assistant would pick up on any apparent faults.
Lady buys with the wholehearted approval of her husband.
Few days later she call the shop and says her daughter doesn't like the outfit and can she have her her money back. Told will do an exchange for something else or have a credit note. She refuses this.
She is angry about it.
Few more days and she calls again. She has found a fault on the outfit and wants her money back. Told to bring it in for inspection., and if it's possible we;'ll do an y necessary repair or replace as normal practice.
She refuses and posts it back along with the matching shoes and bag which all of a sudden she says are faulted too. In fact a fault she says exists actually doesn't.
She has now instigated a claimback - cashback for the full amount.
Given that the lady called and told us that her daughter didn't like her outfit in the 1st place, this being the obvious problem, then some days late the sudden discovery of faults which we are adamant weren't present at the time of the sale I am angry about this.
I know that the sale of goods act puts the onus of proof on us to show that a fault didn't exist but of course that's an impossible task.
So, what I need advice on is the following:
Is the lady entitled to a full refund regardless. She has refused us the right to repair or replace the allegedly faulted items. She has refused a credit note.. She has refused to have an exchange from stock of another outfit exactly the same.
I feel aggressively that the faults have been deliberately put in the material. In any case, as we have received the items back from her by post, I can see that such damage would take no more than a few seconds to mend without any deterioration of quality or being noticeable to the eye.
The cash-back has just been presented through my credit card facility but I have 30 days to contest it.
Should I just leave it at that? I mean if it had been a £30 jumper it wouldn't be too bad but this customer made a deliberate (though I can't prove it) fault in the sleeve of the outfit costing over £700 in order to get her money back as her daughter didn't like it.
Can the credit card company actually process a cash-back when it's contested on that basis?
If so do I have rights to chase them for repayment when it has been fairly contested.
Any other things worth mentioning, ie am I right in assuming that even though the proof doesn't exist that the outfit wasn't faulted at time of purchase after being tried on and considered in the presence of her husband that I'm still afforded the right to replace, repair or otherwise make some financial refund as way of compensation.
I am in favour of the Sale of Goods Act, as it's a necessary safeguard for those who really are being unfavourably treated by retailers, however it's a bit of a one way street when a customer tries to rip the retailer off.
Ladies fashion shop retailing mother of the bride outfits. Lady visits with her husband. Tries on loads of outfits in a smallish fitting room where she can show the outfits to her husband and to inspect them in front of massive mirrors along 3 sides of the room.
She tries on loads of them and finally settles on one she loves and which she chose carefully and in the presence of her husband. She also chose matching shoes and bag to go with it.
There is ample time to inspect the outfit, and even the sales assistant would pick up on any apparent faults.
Lady buys with the wholehearted approval of her husband.
Few days later she call the shop and says her daughter doesn't like the outfit and can she have her her money back. Told will do an exchange for something else or have a credit note. She refuses this.
She is angry about it.
Few more days and she calls again. She has found a fault on the outfit and wants her money back. Told to bring it in for inspection., and if it's possible we;'ll do an y necessary repair or replace as normal practice.
She refuses and posts it back along with the matching shoes and bag which all of a sudden she says are faulted too. In fact a fault she says exists actually doesn't.
She has now instigated a claimback - cashback for the full amount.
Given that the lady called and told us that her daughter didn't like her outfit in the 1st place, this being the obvious problem, then some days late the sudden discovery of faults which we are adamant weren't present at the time of the sale I am angry about this.
I know that the sale of goods act puts the onus of proof on us to show that a fault didn't exist but of course that's an impossible task.
So, what I need advice on is the following:
Is the lady entitled to a full refund regardless. She has refused us the right to repair or replace the allegedly faulted items. She has refused a credit note.. She has refused to have an exchange from stock of another outfit exactly the same.
I feel aggressively that the faults have been deliberately put in the material. In any case, as we have received the items back from her by post, I can see that such damage would take no more than a few seconds to mend without any deterioration of quality or being noticeable to the eye.
The cash-back has just been presented through my credit card facility but I have 30 days to contest it.
Should I just leave it at that? I mean if it had been a £30 jumper it wouldn't be too bad but this customer made a deliberate (though I can't prove it) fault in the sleeve of the outfit costing over £700 in order to get her money back as her daughter didn't like it.
Can the credit card company actually process a cash-back when it's contested on that basis?
If so do I have rights to chase them for repayment when it has been fairly contested.
Any other things worth mentioning, ie am I right in assuming that even though the proof doesn't exist that the outfit wasn't faulted at time of purchase after being tried on and considered in the presence of her husband that I'm still afforded the right to replace, repair or otherwise make some financial refund as way of compensation.
I am in favour of the Sale of Goods Act, as it's a necessary safeguard for those who really are being unfavourably treated by retailers, however it's a bit of a one way street when a customer tries to rip the retailer off.
Comment