To expect a refund?

[Kai1977]

I bought a top from Zara a week ago, got it home to find a buttonhole was damaged. I can't find the receipt but the amount shows on my credit bill.

Zara will only offer an exchange. Does the credit card bill not count as proof of purchase?

Oops sorry, there's been a lot of posts. That all makes sense, thank you!

I think if the goods are faulty they should give you a refund with proof of purchase. They should accept the credit card statement in this case. Sounds like they are just being awkward. I'd report them to Trading Standards or at least threaten to. They'll probably back down.

Here, if you go to a store for a return and you used a credit card, they can swipe the card and bring up the receipt, if it's within a certain period of time. Is something like that possible?

Personally, I wouldn't think that a CC statement would be sufficient, unless the top the OP is returning is the only item in the store at that price. Otherwise, it's not proof of purchase of that item, it's proof of purchase of AN item.

It's the same price on my statement.

If you buy Christmas lights the week ofChristmas and they don't work, the first chance to properly take them back is the week after Christmas. There's nothing trying it on about that. Perhaps they're just cheap shitty lights.

it's not 'fit for purpose' so you are entitled to a refund - email their CEO or head office and you should get a better response

They must accept your statement but they do have the right to offer a replacement where possible e.g. have right size/colour. If not,a refund, as goods were faulty. You bought the item in good faith that it was not faulty, Zara has not carried out their side of the contractcontract.

It's the same price on my statement.

Yes, but my point was, say, the blouse is $20. Unless it's the only item in the store that costs $20, your CC statement doesn't prove you bought that blouse. You could have bought any of the other $20 items in the store.

no i said week after christmas.....

how on EPOS can you search for historic prices? does anyone know?

As was said upthread, a credit card statement should be sufficient. Of course it could relate to other items bought, but it doesn't appear to be enough of an issue not to get a refund. Given the item is part of their new season, there is a higher probabilty that it's the item on my statement.

Yes, but my point was, say, the blouse is $20. Unless it's the only item in the store that costs $20, your CC statement doesn't prove you bought that blouse. You could have bought any of the other $20 items in the store.

I explained this upthread. You don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you bought the item, but on the balance of probabilities. A bank statement is adequate for the courts to discharge this evidential burden.

I never like to shop in Zara after I found a gift card I had forgotten about with £40 on it. I missed the deadline by a few days and they refused to honour it. Rotten customer care . I even contacted head office but had no joy.

balance of probabilities? court?

nah....the chancers never go that far! why would they

Prob already been said but my understanding is

Faulty goods should be replaced. Trading standards or consumer rights. You may require "proof of purchase " which your statement should cover.

You should only really require a receipt if exchange goods when you have "changed your mind " and at this staff many companies give you a refund though they are not obliged to.

what about a branded product....karcher,nike,hoover

could be purchased anywhere......a nike top bought in sports direct or next or jd sports

a credit card statement showing you spent £90....doesnt show what you bought

You are NOT returning the item under the shop's returns policy. You are REJECTING the item under Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to it not being of Satisfactory Quality. The act allows for a full refund on demand for 30 days from purchase for faulty items. It is up to you, not the shop, if you will accept a replacement or repair. After 30 days the shop can insist on replacement or repair, but must refund in full if they can not do this (in a timely manner and to a satisfactory standard). Up to 6 months from purchase, if it is faulty, then the assumption is that it was faulty at purchase unless the shop can legally prove that it was not. The credit card statement is sufficient as proof of purchase - if it went to court the shop would have to prove that the entry on the statement related to something else. The actual receipt is only needed if you are returning it under their returns policy, and you are not doing this.

Some earlier comments talk about the CC or bank statement for a £20 item not proving that it is the same £20 item you are returning. This is true but it doesn't matter. A receipt for a £20 blue jumper doesn't prove that you are returning the same £20 blue jumper either - you could have bought 2 identical jumpers at different times and be returning the first one with the receipt from the second one! Your credit card statement might also be for any amount more than £20 if you bought other stuff at the same time. Again this is irrelevant - it is down to the shop to prove that the statement entry does not relate to the item you are returning.

Probably a stupid question... did you got get an email receipt? I worked in a department store for years and we regularly accepted bank statements, as proof of purchase. It’s always customers first in retail and because the item is faulty they should be offering a refund. Zara seem to be unscrupulous so it might be a battle. I’ve had issues before it’s definitely not ‘customer first’

Good luck OP

Worked in a department store for 10 years now and with it been a fault then yes. You have a proof of purchase which has to be taken in circumstances like faulty and not just that you've changed your mind other wise that would just be the store doing you a favour. And the top hasn't been used which doesn't give any doubt for wear and tear from the store. We're faults are concerned you have more rights in getting refunds if you just change ur mind or bought the wrong top the store just sticks to policy which is basically an agreement on the receipt when you purchased it.

YANBU. They are wrong. You are right. End of. This has come up a million times on Radio 4 You and Yours.

As for the statement not showing you bought that certain item, every store has a system that shows and saves every transaction the only problem is that only it takes time to look transactions up so a statement is extremely helpful to narrow the search down. For example bank card number, date, an average amount spent in store. It may take 10 minutes or so to find and can't be done on most till points only offices but that's how a statement turns into proof. If it was cash though totally different story on tracing a transaction would take a member of staff weeks to look through and can't prove it was your transaction as with card your the only person who could have bought it with that card

I think an exchange is fair enough.

The customer is always right is nonsense in most cases. The case is your entitled.

The customer is always right is nonsense in most cases.

It's not that it's nonsense, it's that people don't actually understand what it really means.

The customer is not always right because the business has rights too otherwise loads of people would take advantage and the business would loose out on a lot of money and there wouldn't be a business anymore

Srush86 You're missing the point.

The phrase "the customer is always right" comes from wanting to give customers good service.

It does not mean that whatever the customer says is right.

It is an often misused phrase.