The Sale of Goods Act isn't specific but I believe that a reasonable interpretation is that within 30 days you can get a replacement or refund and that within 6 months they only have to repair it but you do not have to prove that the fault was inherent. After 6 months I believe that you have up to 6 years, but you have to prove that the item was inherently faulty. The latter means that you may have to pay for an independent report, but you can claim it back if successful.
We need better protection and greater specifics,
I feel that a television should last at least ten years.
However some people use their televisions more often than others, so it is difficult to draw the line from wearing out and developing a fault and abuse.
I have to say I didn't realise their policy had changed - I remember seeing signs on counters informing customers the limit had gone from 1 month to 3 but I never saw any about the latest change. Hhhmmm.
That said she needed a first aider because of the stress of not getting a refund?:eek:
Words fail me...
I have to say I didn't realise their policy had changed - I remember seeing signs on counters informing customers the limit had gone from 1 month to 3 but I never saw any about the latest change. Hhhmmm.
That said she needed a first aider because of the stress of not getting a refund?:eek:
Words fail me...
What a rude comment, you didn't have to read the thread let alone reply, the post is as valid, if not more so, than a lot are on here.
Guilty as charged. I was just confused as the thread title bore little relevance to the actual post. A huge institution with well known financial problems altering the returns policy on the QT could be interesting, hence my clickage, however the post turns out not to be about that at all, but simply focuses on one woman's reaction to it.
Most stores are more reasonable than you think. As long as the product is part of the current range and hasn't been reduced in the sale they will offer you a credit note or refund for the full price. Next, for example have always accepted in season returns from me well over their stated policy date. Nearly all the high st shops offer an extended return over xmas too.
People should decide on what they want and stick too it. Retailers have no obligation legally to exchange stuff if its not liked. Who wants to wear something that has been in someone's house for 3 months. Its likely to have gone out of fashion in that time!
Guilty as charged. I was just confused as the thread title bore little relevance to the actual post. A huge institution with well known financial problems altering the returns policy on the QT could be interesting, hence my clickage, however the post turns out not to be about that at all, but simply focuses on one woman's reaction to it.
Sorry I was half asleep when I posted it and realised I should have called the thread something different when it was too late to change it! I was just amazed at the woman's ridiculous over reaction I don't particularly have an issue with M & S new returns policy!
This story came about because the local rag (Bucks Free Press) had nothing better to write about, so made it a main story.
All the comments about the non-story on the BFP website have made it clear that no-one agreed with her, and most regarded the story as humiliating her, rather than her getting the sympathy she was obviously hoping to get.
The National rag picked it up several weeks later and has tried to make it a big story, without looking at the online comments.
Lazy journalism - unless they were out to humiliate her even further
I have to say I didn't realise their policy had changed - I remember seeing signs on counters informing customers the limit had gone from 1 month to 3 but I never saw any about the latest change. Hhhmmm.
Hi, it never went from 1 month to 3 months. It used to be unlimited til a few years ago and then went to 90 days (3 months). In April it went to 35 days (5 wks) as most people did returns within 28 days! It was well advertised, the papers have gone ott on this!
Life in High Wycombe must be very stressful- I am surprised she is not sueing for a few million pounds for the distress caused
The only words that come immediately to mind are "stupid cow" .
I wonder having read this if she actually bought the dresses wore them on holdiay and then decided to take one back after she came home ?
If only all our problems were so small as M&S having very publicly announced it changed their returns from 90 days to 35 days .
And if she will think twice about buying her Chrsitams presents at M&S does that mean she will not be buying any at all as M&S have longer than the other high street stores.
Just looked at the original story with pic, I know she said different colours but I assuemed they would be close as in light and dark red so she wanted to decide.
Those are yellow and puirple, surely she knows which colour she likes , I mean yellow and purple are very different. On a rather personal level, both would look awful on her with her complexion.
Perhaps she had a jacket potato in the M&S canteen and they put margarine on it instead of butter. In her delirious disorientated state she might have gone colour blind and bought both dresses thinking that they were similar. She then fell into a 35 day coma after which she came round, realised that the dresses were a different colour and tried to return one to M&S. On her way out she chewed a wasp and was pictured by the NewsFreePress?
Stressed because M&S have changed their policy. Come and live in the real world love and you'll see situations that warrant beng stressed by. Better still don't as the shock could bring on an early death. She wants to think herself lucky that she received a partial refund.
I worked at M and S HQ several years ago, dealing with returned items. Believe me they were a VERY generous company giving refunds and money back for faults very easily. They have a good reputation and having seen it from the frontline Id say deservedly so....
If they are tightening their belts a little- so what! Everyone else is so much tougher than them..
That spoilt woman should be ashamed of herself.:mad:
Comments
We need better protection and greater specifics,
I feel that a television should last at least ten years.
However some people use their televisions more often than others, so it is difficult to draw the line from wearing out and developing a fault and abuse.
That said she needed a first aider because of the stress of not getting a refund?:eek:
Words fail me...
How do we know she wasn't a special person?
Guilty as charged. I was just confused as the thread title bore little relevance to the actual post. A huge institution with well known financial problems altering the returns policy on the QT could be interesting, hence my clickage, however the post turns out not to be about that at all, but simply focuses on one woman's reaction to it.
Sorry I was half asleep when I posted it and realised I should have called the thread something different when it was too late to change it! I was just amazed at the woman's ridiculous over reaction
I don't see her problem at all. The goods weren't faulty so why did she assume she could return them? They're not a hire service.
All the comments about the non-story on the BFP website have made it clear that no-one agreed with her, and most regarded the story as humiliating her, rather than her getting the sympathy she was obviously hoping to get.
The National rag picked it up several weeks later and has tried to make it a big story, without looking at the online comments.
Lazy journalism - unless they were out to humiliate her even further
Hi, it never went from 1 month to 3 months. It used to be unlimited til a few years ago and then went to 90 days (3 months). In April it went to 35 days (5 wks) as most people did returns within 28 days! It was well advertised, the papers have gone ott on this!
The only words that come immediately to mind are "stupid cow" .
I wonder having read this if she actually bought the dresses wore them on holdiay and then decided to take one back after she came home ?
If only all our problems were so small as M&S having very publicly announced it changed their returns from 90 days to 35 days .
And if she will think twice about buying her Chrsitams presents at M&S does that mean she will not be buying any at all as M&S have longer than the other high street stores.
I remember ASDA had a 3 year return policy if electrical goods were faulty and they had to go back to 1 year as customers were abusing the deal.
Original local story
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/beaconsfield/4578759.Shopper_s_anger_over_M_S_refund_changes/
Lots of comments over how she is a silly cow and M&S are correct.
Updated story today with the Bucks Free Press seem to be bragging how it has gone national. But its still a non-story
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4654587.Newsroom_blog__M_S_story_goes_national/
Just looked at the original story with pic, I know she said different colours but I assuemed they would be close as in light and dark red so she wanted to decide.
Those are yellow and puirple, surely she knows which colour she likes , I mean yellow and purple are very different. On a rather personal level, both would look awful on her with her complexion.
LOL
I worked at M and S HQ several years ago, dealing with returned items. Believe me they were a VERY generous company giving refunds and money back for faults very easily. They have a good reputation and having seen it from the frontline Id say deservedly so....
If they are tightening their belts a little- so what! Everyone else is so much tougher than them..
That spoilt woman should be ashamed of herself.:mad: