Forgot to return purchases on time, retailer is charging me

[user120525]

I stupidly forgot to return £400(!!) worth of clothes within the retailer's 14 day returns eligibility window (perimenopause brain?). So I just posted the lot back to them and wrote them a nice email asking if I could please get a refund onto my original payment method (credit card).
They wrote back saying they've given me £400 credit onto my online account instead. I don't want this credit, I really need the money back.
I realise that I am entirely in the wrong here but was wondering if anyone knows or has ideas for recourse here so I can get actual real money refunded back to me?! TIA!

The post removed was not an apology, it didn't even have the words sorry or apologise in it, it was something else. You made no attempt to apologise, there was no inference of an apology on the removed post.

Your post where you apologise is still on this thread, it wasn't that one that was removed, you can go back a page to read it back.

I apologised to whoever was extremely dismissive of my post, triumphing over the fact that part of it was right, that the firm can give a credit note instead of a cash refund.

They picked up on that, and castigated me for posting the whole law instead of giving posters the opportunity to know what they can and cannot do in law.

Obviously some of it applied and some didn't. My post assumed that posters would want to know what the law was, which is why they read the thread.

Everything in that post was right, and lawful. It gave posters the opportunity to decide which applied in the OP's case and for their future reference should they find themselves in the same situation.

In my experience to date I like to see both sides of a situation. Pros and cons are equally important.

My apology was a bit sarcastic, because I just didn't want to continue such a response which was an insult to me, but there again, perhaps other posters had taken the wrong attitude to my post, so I apologised.

Posters should be aware that if they do not grovel enough, apologies are withdrawn until they post a suitably grovelling apology.

That's not the post that was removed

llizzie · Yesterday 18:58

Blackdow · Yesterday 13:31
You’ve just posted something which confirms what i said, not what you said.
You’re literally posting evidence that says they are allowed to give a credit note in these circumstances.
Do you not understand that?
Show quote history
I am so very grateful to you for pointing out the error of my ways.
I shall try to avoid making such a dreadful mistake in future. I certainly will not bother to give out the whole law.
I am indebted to you, and you must be absolutely delighted at your success.

If you go back a page to that time, the post you are talking about is still there

Ong @llizzie just accept you posted nonsense when you copy and pasted from AI and that you have no idea what you’re talking about and move on. You’re making yourself look rather silly.

Can they even refuse the credit note and send the goods back to you? I don't know

yes, legally they have no liability to OP in these circumstances, so a credit note is better than she could legally argue for.

I think the problem is you talk about seeing both sides, but there is no “both sides” argument in this situation only facts that apply to OP, in that she’d has no legal entitlement to a refund as she’s out of time and the items aren’t faulty. It’s very black and white. Yet you posted advising her to contact her credit card company, financial ombudsman et al, which was poor advice, and you’ve responded equally poorly to people pointing that out.

I most certainly did not. What I pasted was the Consumer law in what I hoped was full, so that anyone reading it might be interested in the whole law, and not just the bit where the OP had spent too long making her mind up.

When there is information to be given, it is best given in full. Those who read all the information can see what to do in other circumstances.

Why would anyone want a bunch of irrelevant information? This is the problem when people dumbly copy and paste and apply no critical thinking. This is a change of mind, so legally the retailer isn't obligated to do anything. OP is lucky she even got a credit note at all, let alone that she didn't even send it back in time.

Except what you posted was entirely irrelevant to the OP, so why would anyone be interested in the law that doesn’t apply to OP’s problem…?

I like to think that when I post on a thread it might be of help to the OP, yet it seems so many people think they are more qualified to answer people's posts and questions than the person to whom the post is directed.

Surely, if the OP is interested in a reply, it is their place to answer and not others who think themselves more qualified to judge.

How do you know that the information I put up is irrelevant? Only the OP can know, since she is the one posting the thread.

The lawmakers don't think it irrelevant, otherwise Parliament would not spend so much time debating the issue, and laws would not be made to cover ALL events.

What gives you the right to tell me that my post is irrelevant to readers? It may be to you, a knowital, but there may be other readers who are interested in the whole law and not just bits of it.

Because it was irrelevant. You posted that you didn’t believe it was legal to give a credit note, we all told you that you were wrong. You replied to all of our posts with the AI essay, as if it proved you were correct… when it was about faulty products and credit notes. Not relevant.

This is a straightforward return, outside of the legal entitlement. Your essay had no relevance. OP isn’t entitled to anything at all, was lucky to get the credit note and that had been explained repeatedly before you came along and posted guidance which did not apply, whilst telling us we were wrong.

It is not helpful. Just read a thread before you post and decide if what you have to say has any relevance to the OP.

Your post was completely irrelevant. You posted about the return of faulty and defective products. None of that applies here.

OP’s problem is about returning clothes she’s simply does not want. What does the return of faulty and defective items have to do with that?

So? You told me I was wrong. I was not wholly wrong. What business is it of yours anyway? When I posted next was entirely appropriate and right, because I quoted the law.

I posted the whole consumer rules that said there were circumstances in which the company could not give a credit note, and circumstances in which they could.

You cannot leave it alone, can you. It is NOYB. If the OP has a problem with what I post, let the OP tell me.

What your posts - and this is not the first time, is it - tells other posters is that you just don't know how to be nice to people and are always quick to judge, even when you don't know me from a hole in the wall.

What sort of help is that? Let the OP decide if a response is right and helpful.

I posted the whole law, not just the return of faulty goods. Your problem is that I copied and pasted the information in the Consumer Act and you don't like Ai information, whether it comes from the government or not.

Get real. Ai is here to stay when it comes to explaining the law.

The danger of Ai is that criminals can use it it for their own ends. Well criminals can do that with anything. It can enable those sex offenders to publish photos of ordinary innocent people and blackmail them. It can be used against actors, film stars, singers.

That is the worse side of it. That doesn't mean you should dismiss anything which has the Ai heading. It is also the fastest and most accurate way of finding answers to our questions. I love it. I have learned more about how long wine keeps - for example - than I ever could before. Imagine being able to ask whether a 1976 wine is still drinkable!!

It was still irrelevant because the OPs position was outside any entitlement to a refund for any reason. Stop digging, you are just making yourself look stupid.

You'd get more from selling the voucher on ebay, less trouble too.

What on earth are you on about…

We have no idea what you asked AI. If you copied the OP’s post, then it gave you the wrong answer and shows just how flawed AI is.

If the answer was right for the question you ask, then it shows that what went wrong here was you asking the wrong question.

But your rants are really irrelevant now.

If you can't remember to send stuff back, get a magnetic board on your fridge.
When the goods are delivered, mark on the board when to return them, which isn't 14 days, it's sooner than that. Immediately put a reminder on your phone or watch for that date.
That way, when your phone pings the reminder, you know to look at the board.

Here is why it's irrelevant.

No, you are not obligated to accept a credit note instead of a refund if you have returned a faulty product or if you are entitled to a refund under consumer rights laws. If you're returning something because it's faulty or isn't as described, you are generally entitled to a full refund. A retailer's returns policy can only require a credit note for returns due to a change of mind or for items you are not eligible for a refund on.

The goods were not faulty and OP was not entitled to a refund so the credit note was correct. If you had just posted this then nobody would care.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Faulty Goods:
If a product is faulty, you are entitled to a refund, repair, or replacement within a reasonable timeframe (typically 30 days for a full refund, then potentially repair or replacement for longer than 30 days).

Not faulty so irrelevant.

Change of Mind:
If you're returning an item simply because you've changed your mind, the retailer may offer a credit note or exchange instead of a cash refund, but you're not legally obligated to accept it.

It was a change of mind so she got a credit note.

Online Purchases:
If you've returned an online order within the 14-day cooling-off period, you are entitled to a full refund if you've changed your mind.

She didn't, it was about 6 weeks so irrelevant.

Credit Notes for Certain Items:
There are exceptions where a credit note may be the only option. This might include items like personalized items, perishable goods, or those with limited return policies (e.g., unwrapped CDs/DVDs).

Doesn't apply so irrelevant.

SM isn't an acronym.