To think House of Fraser’s refund policy is another nail in their coffin

[Bearbehind]

I bought several expensive and heavy items online with the intention of choosing 1 and taking the others back to my local store for a refund

Turns out you can only exchange or get a credit note in store

If you want your money back you have to post it back at your own cost

Given the weight and value, I’m nearly £30 down for the pleasure.

Surely they can’t afford to piss customers off by refusing to refund in store - what difference does it make to them?

Very expensive lesson learned!

I will never buy from them again

That if they offer you a voucher, as they really are legally entitled to, you can simply ask for a proper refund.

OK, so the issue here is that you think it’s not at all misleading to say they ONLY need to OFFER a credit note or voucher, whilst accepting that if the consumer ASKS for a cash refund they HAVE to give it

🤔

@Bearbehind I do, obviously. But I also read a lot of the Act (it interested me and distracted me from work) and the bits that underly those bullet points.

Do you really not understand that? That the Act is far, far longer than the bullet points on the government page!

I give in! That's the law, as it is written! You are the one adding absolute terms. Bloody Nora!

Surely you can see that, by breaking it down so much, then only quoting half of it, you mislead people

You specifically said previously that they legally ONLY need to OFFER a credit note or refund. No mention of legally being obliged to refund in cash.

Don’t you see how misleading that is?

They actually have to PROVIDE a cash refund, whatever they OFFER

You did say other posters were being obtuse @CuriousaboutSamphire .......

😂 olive

You specifically said previously that they legally ONLY need to OFFER a credit note or refund. No mention of legally being obliged to refund in cash. Yep! Because if their T+Cs are clear, that is what the law says they have to offer. ADDITIONALLY the customer has the right to ask for a refund.

I really am not being obtuse here. I wasn't being misleading, just explaining why the voucher only offer is legal.. just not the be all and end all of the CCR. Consumers have additional rights.

Most laws have competing sides... most laws are as complicated. There is more to the law than the simplified bullet points, the bottom line is more nuanced!* That is why WHICH exists after all!

• Thanks for the accusation, whoever it was that so badly misspelled that earlier! Shocking!

Sorry it has been a lesson in obtuseness.

Quoting chapter and verse is NOT the same as knowing the spirit of the law which plenty of posters on here know!

And use regularly!

And don't need WHich for!

This isn't a bloody quiz.

Dear God - this could go on for days!

Please can we just agree the following is correct:-

A retailer has to provide a cash refund to a customer, if that is what they want, if they decide to return goods (within the specified times) they bought online and have simply changed their mind about (unless they were made to order)

Oh my! The sheer weight of your repsoinses has made me see the error of my ways!

Obtuse shall henceforth be my middle name!

But I reserve the right to be as pedantic in any future posting as the devil is in the detail. I can't see why it isn't clear what I meant: in real life, when confronted with a retailer saying "Our T+Cs says we offer a voucher" it is handy to know how that happens and how to cirmcumvent it! Otherwise you just get a Yes / No debate that exasperates everyone involved. Knowledge is power, after all!

Suck it up samphire.

Otherwise you just get a Yes / No debate that exasperates everyone involved.

Seriously

curious, the only knowledge people need is that they are entitled to a cash refund if they buy online and simply change their mind - end of.

All the rest of your points were just distracting bluster.

And you haven’t actually agreed that my post above is correct, preferring to bluster some more!

No, no bluster. Just a different mind set.

And I could say that you, Bear haven't actually agreed that my posts have been factually correct, more detailed, preferring to simplify some more.

I think the reality is here that you did actually originally get it wrong and think that consumers weren’t entitled to a refund for goods bought on line unless the goods were faulty (as is the case with instore purchases), per your post at 8.05 yesterday.

But instead of admitting it and moving on, you tried to style it out and twitter on about ‘offering’ credits notes etc.

I think it’s fair to say that your styling out didn’t really work 😂

Your points weren’t factually correct in isolation though! It was only half the story.

And you still haven’t conceded that my summary is accurate, which implies you still don’t think it is.

You can think that, but you would be wrong.

I don't do 'styling out' as I am not a child or teenager! If I am wrong I say so and apologise, have done so on a very recent post!

My comment about faulty goods was because you seemed to be relying on that part of the regulations, along with referring to an out of date Act. For faulty goods there is no equivocation. I posted links to both sets of information in that post, to show the minor differences.

I can only say again that I think it is importanmt to know the details, as many companies will try to fob off an unhappy customer.

I think it is fair to say that I am not wrong and nor is your headline version!

Only half the story... how often do you recap a whole thread in every single post??? Or do you, as everyone else does, respond as if having a conversation?

Behave!!

conceded ? Are we in a war or something?

I had no idea MN required combat skills!

had no idea MN required combat skills

Oh I think you do.

You're a very aggressive poster. RTFT.

Really curious you are looking a bit foolish now.

You’ve tried to claim repeatedly that retailers can write it into their T&C’s that they only have to ‘offer’ a credit note or voucher for online unwanted returns

No retailer is going to do that as it implies they don’t have to do anything else, which isn’t true, so they would just look like obstructive, combative twats and it isn’t within the spirit of the legislation.

The fact you can’t acknowledge / admit / concede / accept, whatever you want to call it, that the bottom line is my summary is all a consumer needs to know, just shows you still don’t actually agree and still think there’s more to it than that. But there really isn’t

Huh?

I'm not the one telling people they are being patronising, using laughing emojis / tinkly little laughs at pp, using RTFT etc.

How is quoting details and believing WHICH is correct aggressive!

Weird.

I have a dog to walk. Enjoy the rest of your thread!

Apologies, I missed the bit where you did actually agree with my summary

Just as you missed the bit where I said that it was the word only I disagreed with!