Primark - Naughty with their naughties...

[Bookworm]

Bought 2 new bras and matching knickers (sold as separates) the other day. Due to my mobility issue, I didn't try them on in-store and did it at home. One lot, great, the other not so much, turns out the knickers have a tear in the lace which I hadn't noticed. That will teach me to shop in a hurry.

 

So off I trot (well, shuffle really ) to Primark yesterday for a refund.

 

As I get to Customer Services, I see at each till a sign saying that for hygiene reasons, knickers, boxers etc aren't refunded, this doesn't affect your statutory rights. Oh, really? Hmm...

 

I tell the young lady that I want a refund. She says "we don't do refunds on knickers". I explain that the knickers have a tear, so faulty, statutory rights apply. No, she says, it says so here (points at notice) and on the receipt.

 

Now, if she had just accepted the "faulty" part of my argument, we wouldn't have had an issue, but I'm afraid that set me off. So I calmly and in 1 or 2 syllable words explained to her 1) SOGA, statutory rights as opposed to shop policy, 2) Unfair terms: How can one purchase an item with restrictions on refunds/returns when the restrictions only become known AFTER purchase (receipt/CS desk)?

 

When I stopped to catch my breath, she said: "I'll get my supervisor", who arrived and promptly authorised the refund as the item was clearly faulty.

 

What gets me is that if they hadn't been damaged, I would have had such a major row on my hands, due to THEM not telling ME what I can and can not return before I buy it. So now, I am planning to write to Primark head-office pointing out that if they want to have such a term in their sales policy (don't get me wrong, I am not blaming them for having such a policy, lots of shops do it too and it is understandable!), then they need to make their customers aware before they purchase, thereby giving them a choice to purchase or not. If you want to have a "caveat emptor", then make sure the emptor knows what the caveat is!

[tiglet]

Getting your knickers in a twist again Bookie?

[Bookworm]

Ah ah ah.

[Lula]

and she is branching out too, fed up with twisting her own knickers she has widened the net to Primarks too

[gyzmo]

I would have also quoted the Consumer Protection (Restrictions on Statements) Order which makes it an OFFENCE (yes - an actual crime! Whoopeee!) to have a sign like that up.

 

A certain supermarket tried something like this with their food. It just so happened that I was with a TO at the time. Told the store manager that he shouldn't display the sign. "Don't be stupid - we've got the disclaimer on statutory rights", said the manager laughing. The TSO soon wiped the smirk off his face - "You've been told", said the TSO " get it down - NOW!!!". Tee hee hee!

[Bookworm]

Oooh, I don't know that one, tell me more!

 

And shut up, Lula.

[gyzmo]

Welllllll - the Order (think its 1976) makes it an offence to display a sign that purports to restrict the rights of the consumer. That's it! I think it gives a list of phrases that cannot be used (non-exhaustive), but just sticking "this does not effect you stat. rights" is just nonsense. Why shops think they can do this I don't know! Personaly if I see a sign like that I

A. Dont shop there because if something does go wrong, you know the shop has no knowledge of consumer law and it will be a bugger trying to get your money back

B. Report the shop! Definitely! If they think they can do this then they deserve a fine in my book.

[Bookworm]

Right, had a quick look around, but from what I can see, Primark are not actually breaking the law by refusing refunds on underwear, as they are not seeking to restrict the statutory rights. The no refund on underwear is part of their refund policy which is in addition to statutory rights, the shop girl however was obviously not aware of that.

 

My beef here is that their additional policy is excluding certain items, which is fair enough, BUT does not give the customer the facts about that until after you have purchased them, and that is just plain ridiculous.

[lawbunny]

Erm... Primark are not acting illegally.

 

They are not restricting your statutory rights; they will refund for faulty goods in line with SOGA - they are merely stating that under their refund policy they will not refund for underwear items simply because you change your mind (as they will do with other clothing items).

 

As for not telling you before the sale this is complete nonsense. The big garing sign at the tills advising you of this before the sale is completed is legally substantial enough. Just because you did not read it does not mean Primark are in the wrong.

[gyzmo]

Well, here's the relevant part of the Order (I know its not the issue but thought some might like to see it). Be aware though that there are interpretations of certain terms that have not been included:

 

3

 

A person shall not, in the course of a business—

(a) display, at any place where consumer transactions are effected (whether wholly or partly), a notice containing a statement which purports to apply, in relation to consumer transactions effected there, a term which would—

[(i) be void by virtue of section 6 or 20 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977,] or

(ii) be inconsistent with [a term implied by sections 4, 9, 11D, or 11J of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982],

 

 

 

 

 

if applied to some or all such consumer transactions;

(b) publish or cause to be published any advertisement which is intended to induce persons to enter into consumer transactions and which contains a statement purporting to apply in relation to such consumer transactions such a term as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii), being a term which would be void by virtue of, or as the case may be, inconsistent with, the provisions so mentioned if applied to some or all of those transactions;

© supply to a consumer pursuant to a consumer transaction goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, a statement which is a term of that consumer transaction and which is void by virtue of, or inconsistent with, the said provisions, or if it were a term of that transaction, would be so void or inconsistent;

(d) furnish to a consumer in connection with the carrying out of a consumer transaction or to a person likely, as a consumer, to enter into such a transaction, a document which includes a statement which is a term of that transaction and is void or inconsistent as aforesaid, or, if it were a term of that transaction or were to become a term of a prospective transaction, would be so void or inconsistent.

 

4

 

A person shall not in the course of a business—

(i) supply to a consumer pursuant to a consumer transaction goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, a statement about the rights that the consumer has against that person or about the obligations to the consumer accepted by that person in relation to the goods (whether legally enforceable or not), being rights or obligations that arise if the goods are defective or are not fit for a purpose or do not correspond with a description;

(ii) furnish to a consumer in connection with the carrying out of a consumer transaction or to a person likely, as a consumer, to enter into such a transaction with him or through his agency a document containing a statement about such rights and obligations,

 

 

 

unless there is in close proximity to any such statement another statement which is clear and conspicuous and to the effect that the first mentioned statement does not or will not affect the statutory rights of a consumer.

 

Basically, if a sign simply says no refunds, and makes no reference to exceptions to them not refunding (faulty, description etc) then it is illegal. It does not matter whether or not they would actually refuse a refund in such a case, merely that the sign gives the impression that a refund would be refused would be enough.

 

The following link gives some good guidance on teh area http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/tsbi_18_restrictions_on_statements.pdf

[Bookworm]

They are not restricting your statutory rights; they will refund for faulty goods in line with SOGA - they are merely stating that under their refund policy they will not refund for underwear items simply because you change your mind (as they will do with other clothing items).

that's not what the shop girl said and if I hadn't insisted, she would have kept on refusing to refund on a faulty item. So yes, that would have been a clear breach of SOGA. That would be acting illegally.

 

As for not telling you before the sale this is complete nonsense.

 

The big garing sign at the tills advising you of this before the sale is completed is legally substantial enough. Just because you did not read it does not mean Primark are in the wrong

Seems to me you're the one who did not read properly. I clearly stated that the signs are at the customer services tills. These are located far away from the regular tills in a corner, and they do not carry out sales at those tills, only refunds and exchanges. There are no signs at the tills where you go to pay for your goods. There are no signs near the underwear sections. The only signs are at tills where purchases do not take place or on the receipt, therefore after you have made the purchase.

 

Tell me again where you see nonsense? :-?

[lawbunny]

I apologise. I did not realise (as it was not actually stated) that the Customer Service tills were separate from the other tills (quite often that is not the case).

 

If it was not stated at the normal tills when the sale takes place, then that is fair enough.

[Skót]

I would expect that the journy back to primark and home again (by bus / taxi / car(paying for parking)) would of cost you more than the knickers themseves?

 

Usually if I get something faulty from primark it jsut goes in the bin, unless I know i have anothere reason to go back to town

[Bookworm]

I had to go to the bank as well and do some shopping, so not a problem. I agree I would have been unlikely to make the trip just for that.

[gyzmo]

Might I also add something to this?

 

There are many who may say "it's only worth so much - I'm not tht bothered" and dump a faulty / misdescribed etc item rather than claim a refund or exchange.

 

There are just as many (I include myself here) however for whom that amount of money simply cannot be wasted. I would hate to think that such people would feel that they are doing something wrong by asking for a refund on a "cheap" item. Also, I would hate shops to think that just because an item is of a low price that i should be of a poor quality, and rely on making a profit by flogging crap goods knowing that people will feel to ashamed to ask for a refund or simply not be bothered.

 

Obviously, there are ecnomics that come into this - it would be silly paying £4 for a bus ticket just to go to town to get a refund on something worth £2, but the cheapness of an item should not put people off expecting something reasonable from it (given the price etc) and thinking they can't do anything just becuase of the amount of money involved.

[barracad]

Can I also add something?

 

Even though my learned friend Bookworm didn't see the signs which stated underwear could not be returned, she probably had a good idea that such a policy existed. Well at least I hope so anyway - I don't think she would have bought the leopardprint thong if she'd thought they allowed exchanges so somebody else could have been wearing it for a while before her!

[tiglet]

You're a naughty boy barracad

[gyzmo]

That really does not bear thinking about....

 

However, there is a difference between the "refund if you change your mind" policy and the "refund because Parliament says so" (i.e - SoGA etc). That latter cannot be withdrawn from even by agreement to do so.

 

Now I happened to be in Primark when a person (who was reading a book) purchased :

thermal knickers (xx large)

Bras (Army and Navy store surplus stock)

 

Now, I shall go and find a small little island on some far off planet in a far away galaxy (and still end up being hunted for the rest of my life). Excuse me whilst I prepare for my funeral!

[barracad]

...and Tigs thought I was naughty!!

[Bookworm]

Can I also add something?

 

Even though my learned friend Bookworm didn't see the signs which stated underwear could not be returned, she probably had a good idea that such a policy existed. Well at least I hope so anyway - I don't think she would have bought the leopardprint thong if she'd thought they allowed exchanges so somebody else could have been wearing it for a while before her!

 

Actually, no, I had no idea. Ann Summers, for example, has a protective plastic thingy in the gusset and will allow returns as long as said seal is left intact, as do most chain stores, but I forgive you if as a bloke, you didn't know this. As for the thought of leopard print thong, *shudders*. :-| I would also appreciate if you would keep your imagination off my knickers, thank you very much.

 

Gyzmo, you can run and you can run, but I will get you for that, sooner or later.

[gyzmo]

There cometh Wrath....

 

Only jokin Bookie - can I come out of hiding now?

 

What's all this in my spam box...

 

And why's there a picture of me on. .:o

[stevokenevo]

Just stumbled upon this thread

 

Bought 2 new bras and matching knickers (sold as separates) the other day.

 

 

knick·ers (nĭk'ərz) Pronunciation Key

pl.n.

1. Long bloomers formerly worn as underwear by women and girls.
   
2. Chiefly British Panties.
1. Full breeches gathered and banded just below the knee.
   

 

No wonder there are motability issues :grin: :grin: