All Faults
· Faulty goods returned within 90 days with a valid proof of purchase i.e. receipt or credit card statement:
Action: 1. Repair (loan garment to be offered to customer)
2. Exchange
3. Issue credit note
4. Refund
If the goods are faulty in the first place are they not of " merchantable quality" or even better "not fit for intended purpose". It is worrying to see that the REFUND option is not seen until Action 4. I would certainly like to see the refund option or action much hogher up the list and would certainly not be happy with a repair leaving you with a second hand garment or item that you paid full price for. Also and exchange is good if the goods are fit for purpose but if they are not and like products have suffered similar related problems then a credit note still guarrantees that the store still gets your money for goods that were faulty, so you the customer end up with no goods but a credit note that entitles you to give a store more of your money for products you may not want or do not really need. It always surprises me (not) that the refund is always only achieved after getting past the usual exchange, credit note (we still have your dosh) arguement. Give us the right for an instant refund if the goods are faulty. What are our true consumer rights on this one?
I was always under the impression that goods had to be "fit for purpose" and of merchantable quality. If they are advertised as 100% waterproof then that is what they must be, clearcut is it not. If they leak they are in contravention to their claims and the goods are no longer fit for intended purpose hence at fault so a full refund should be available. I doubt if a repair to an item is going to surpass the craftmanship of a large manufacturer. Who is to make the repair on such garments. If they are Goretex, then William Gore associates use liscensed manufacturers to make and repair their garments. Some sweat shop sticking a new heat taped seam on a product is not the same as a full warranteed repair by a specialist.
I stand to be shot down in flames for this, and it is open for further dabate and me putting firmly in my place..or not.
· Faulty goods returned within 90 days with a valid proof of purchase i.e. receipt or credit card statement:
Action: 1. Repair (loan garment to be offered to customer)
2. Exchange
3. Issue credit note
4. Refund
If the goods are faulty in the first place are they not of " merchantable quality" or even better "not fit for intended purpose". It is worrying to see that the REFUND option is not seen until Action 4. I would certainly like to see the refund option or action much hogher up the list and would certainly not be happy with a repair leaving you with a second hand garment or item that you paid full price for. Also and exchange is good if the goods are fit for purpose but if they are not and like products have suffered similar related problems then a credit note still guarrantees that the store still gets your money for goods that were faulty, so you the customer end up with no goods but a credit note that entitles you to give a store more of your money for products you may not want or do not really need. It always surprises me (not) that the refund is always only achieved after getting past the usual exchange, credit note (we still have your dosh) arguement. Give us the right for an instant refund if the goods are faulty. What are our true consumer rights on this one?
I was always under the impression that goods had to be "fit for purpose" and of merchantable quality. If they are advertised as 100% waterproof then that is what they must be, clearcut is it not. If they leak they are in contravention to their claims and the goods are no longer fit for intended purpose hence at fault so a full refund should be available. I doubt if a repair to an item is going to surpass the craftmanship of a large manufacturer. Who is to make the repair on such garments. If they are Goretex, then William Gore associates use liscensed manufacturers to make and repair their garments. Some sweat shop sticking a new heat taped seam on a product is not the same as a full warranteed repair by a specialist.
I stand to be shot down in flames for this, and it is open for further dabate and me putting firmly in my place..or not.
