Faulty goods from River Island ***WON***

[DevonShrimper]

I bought a pair of shoes from River Island about a year ago. These were fine and I wore them a lot, eventually wearing them out. As I liked the shoe, I recently went into the same store and purchased a pair of the same shoes again.

Problem. When I wore them, after about 30 mins the little toe on my left foot was aching, so I took the shoe off to see what the problem was. It turned out that the stitching on the shoe had a fault that meant it was protruding into the shoe and had rubbed against my little toe so much that it cut into it, making it bleed. No wonder it was uncomfortable.

As a member here, I knew that the correct approach was to take the shoes back and demand a refund under SOGA s.14, which I did. The girl behind the counter felt the inside of the shoe, compared it to ones on the shelf and declared that there was no fault with the shoe. I insisted on a refund and asked for the manager. Manager came, backed up the sale assistant and pursued the 'They're all made like that' approach. Eventually, because I refused to accept that, the manager told the assistant to replace them. Then she turned the shoe over and saw that the bottom showed that I had worn them and promptly refused to either refund or replace as I had worn the shoe. She wouldn't budge.

Wrote to the head office demanding that I am allowed to return the shoes for a refund, received letter by return refusing to allow me to do that but saying the matter would be forwarded to the local area manager. Two weeks later sent further letter giving deadline to agree to let me return for a full refund. received 2nd letter from them saying how sorry they are etc., but not agreeing to refund.

Deadline is about to pass so I need to make a claim to the court. Problem is, having never had a company actually refuse before, I'm in uncharted territory, and I'm not sure how to word my claim. Can anyone give me any help in making sure I word this correctly, as I don't want to lose the case based on my inability to string the right words together?

Thanks in advance for any help I receive.

[Bookworm]

You won't lose your case on an inability to string the right words together on your claim form, it's not a GCSE exam.

 

Your claim should state that you attempted to reject the goods due to them being faulty as per SOGA 1979 and River Island declined. You should make sure you state in your POC that despite the fact that you were trying to make use of your statutory rights of rejection (SOGA deems goods inherently faulty in the first 6 months of purchase and it is up to them to prove they are NOT faulty, not up to you to prove that they are) and RI just refused to uphold those.

 

You want full refund + court fee + 8% statutory interest.

[DevonShrimper]

Thanks Bookworm, I appreciate the time you took to reply. Can I also claim the costs of my two letters to the head office?

[Bookworm]

If you sent recorded delivery, no. You could have sent it FOC with a certificate of posting as proof of sending, it was your choice to spend the money for RD. If you didn't, you could claim the cost of the stamps, but that's a bit cheap.

[DevonShrimper]

Claim submitted today online through MoneyClaim. I haven't claimed interest. I worked it out and it's 1p so far. Even if the claim is not settled this year it only works out at another 4p. Haven't claimed for the stamps either.

Next time I do this, I'll know not to send by RMSD to ensure they can't deny receiving the letters.

Thanks Bookworm.

[Bookworm]

No problem, and make sure you let us know how it goes.

 

Point of interest: Unless there's a good reason (change of address), a letter will be deemed received whether you sent it RD or not, so strictly speaking, you don't even need that, but I find the Certificate of Posting very useful for things like that, I never ever use RD unless it is for valuable items (had to send my passport last week for example, that went recorded, signed for, you name it!!!! ).

[just1marie]

my daughter paid out £50 for a rocawear jacket, she took it back to the shop because the stitching has come undone in the sleeve. For a fifty pound hoodie the whole stitching is appaulling.However I was not there and the retailer sent it away to a private repair shop. I would prefer a full refund where do I stand on this, very new to this forum

[DevonShrimper]

Just got a response from the court over my claim. River Island are asking the court that I send the shoes back to their head office for inspection. Do I have to accept this?

River Island defence is that the shop have only limited ability to decide whether goods are faulty and this requires 'specialist' investigation. As I explain above, the left shoe has a protusion that cut into my small toe and made it bleed. I would have thought that this does not require a specialist to decide it's faulty. Or am I wrong.

Also, once the shoes are with them, I no longer have any evidence to present in court. Any advice would be helpful.

 

On a different note.

Just1marie, I suggest you start your own thread. Read the FAQs, they'll help you.

[Prolix]

You won't lose your case on an inability to string the right words together on your claim form, it's not a GCSE exam.

 

Your claim should state that you attempted to reject the goods due to them being faulty as per SOGA 1979 and River Island declined. You should make sure you state in your POC that despite the fact that you were trying to make use of your statutory rights of rejection (SOGA deems goods inherently faulty in the first 6 months of purchase and it is up to them to prove they are NOT faulty, not up to you to prove that they are) and RI just refused to uphold those.

 

You want full refund + court fee + 8% statutory interest.

 

A technical point...

 

If a straight rejection is the preferred option then this would be done utilising the original remedies in the Sale of Goods Act i.e. damages and rejection if breach material.

 

The 6 months burden of proof only applies to the new remedies inserted by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations; repair, replace, reject.

 

As you are alleging that the shoes are faulty then it would be reasonable for RI to have an opportunity to inspect them. If they were to conclude that the shoes are fine then it is up to the consumer to prove that they are faulty. One of the downsides of the 6 month burden of proof. All a retailer has to do is look at the goods and say "nah, they're fine" and they have discharged their burden in a sense.

 

So if things get pushed by RI you might find that you have to prove that the shoes are at fault and that there has been a material breach of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act in order to win your case. Also RI might argue that by wearing the shoes you have accepted them and and have lost the right to reject under the original remedies:shock:

[DevonShrimper]

Also RI might argue that by wearing the shoes you have accepted them and and have lost the right to reject under the original remedies

But they're shoes and meant to be worn, not placed on display. It was only by wearing them that I discovered that they were faulty as the inside material gradually cut into my foot over the half hour that I wore them on a gentle walk. From what you are saying, just trying something on in the shop immediately removes the right to reject if they fall apart on first wearing. Surely the goods have to be fit for purpose?

 

I don't understand the 'The 6 months burden of proof only applies to the new remedies inserted by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations; repair, replace, reject. ' Is this a new thing? I only know a little about the SOGA and nothing about this other one. Are you saying that I have the burden of proof or that they have the burden of proof in the first six months.

 

Sorry, but I'm getting very confused by all this. I bought a pair of shoes in good faith as I'd had a pair before that were good. From your reply it seems that any retailer can then just say "nah, they're fine" and I'm out of pocket by £45 and still need a pair of shoes because this pair make my feet bleed if I wear them. Surely that's not right?

[Prolix]

Sorry if I have muddied the waters!

 

You're quite right, you would need to wear the shoes to ascertain whether or not they conformaed to the contract. The point I was making was that RI, if they were feeling cheeky, could argue that you are not entitled to a refund because you accepted the goods by wearing them out and about. I don't however think for one minute that they would indulge themselves in such sophistry, I just wanted to say that they might!

 

The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regs inserted a new set of remedies in the Sale of Goods Act. Previously consumers could only claim damages or if the breach was a material one and they acted quickly enough, then they could reject an get a full refund. This created the situation whereby if the product that you bought developed a fault, say 5 months later, you could only claim damages from the trader as you would have lost your right to reject due to the lapse of a reasonable time.

 

(you can only reject goods that you haven't accepted. Acceptance occurs after the lapse of a reasonable time, if you intimate acceptance or if you do an act inconsistent with the traders ownership. So if you bought a TV then after a week or so you would be deemed to have accepted it because a reasonable time would have elapsed in which you can test out all the functions of the TV to see if it conforms to contract. Different goods would have different timescales, depending on complexity for example. A fridge does only one thing; cool food, so a day or two might be reasonable whereas a laptop does many different things so a couple of weeks might not be outwith the realms of possibility)

 

The new remedies inserted into SOGA placed a 6 month burden of proof onto a trader which meant that if a product went faulty within 6 months then it would be presumed that that fault was there at the time of sale and the buyer would be entitled to a repair, replacement, partial or full refund (the trader can decide which he is offering). This gave a better set of remedies for a buyer who had a product with a latent defect.

 

It has to be noted that the original and new remedies run parallel and buyers can choose which to use and can use both, but cannot switch between. For example if you chose the original remedy (rejection) you would have to wait till this avenue was exhausted before the other new remdies could be pursued.

 

So in your case if you use the new remedies thr burden of proof is on the retailer to show that the goods did conform to contract. All they have to do is inspect them, and as they are the expert, can state, if they wish, that in their opinion the shoes are fine. You then have to prove they are not fine which does make a bit of a mockery of the intended protections of the 6 month burden of proof.

 

You would be better off rejecting under the old remedies which I think might be successful, but RI may argue you had accepted the goods by wearing them out...

 

Sorry about the length of this reply. I'm not called prolix for nothing!!!

[DevonShrimper]

You would be better off rejecting under the old remedies which I think might be successful, but RI may argue you had accepted the goods by wearing them out...

 

Sorry about the length of this reply. I'm not called prolix for nothing!!!

I've worn them once for about half an hour, although that was outside. So I haven't worn them out, but I have worn them out! Are the wonders of English.

I'm cautious about sending them back as the shop have already declared that there is nothing wrong with them and 'all of them are like that' so they may, from my understanding of what you said, just fix them and send them back leaving me out of pocket on the court fees.

Sorry if I ramble a bit too, but this is the first time I've ever had a store refuse to accept back faulty goods, and in this case so obviously faulty, so it took me aback. From what you are saying, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm likely to get anywhere with this.

 

Prolix. I had to look that up as I've never heard the word before. Learn something new every day.

[Prolix]

Let me know how it all turns out.

[DevonShrimper]

In court today. Judge inspected the said shoes. Declared that the left shoe had a pronounced ridge and was clearly a case of faulty manufacture. No need for any expert inspection. Awarded to me full refund, court costs and £50 for loss of pay. £144.95 in all. So, I bought a pair of shoes for 44.95 and they buy them back for over 3 times that!

Suffice to say I will not be shopping in River Island again.

[gyzmo]

Thats good news - shame it had to get that far though. Not shopping in RI if that's how they treat customers - not that I could afford to anyway!

[Bookworm]

EXCELLENT result!

 

If you think this site helped you with your case, then we'd all be grateful if you could help it carry on doing it for others, every pound helps!

 

[DevonShrimper]

Cooo......

Judge gave River Island until 4pm tomorrow to 'give me the money!'.

 

So in keeping with previous RI practice, the cheque arrived today.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited October 14, 2008 by DevonShrimper
Correct bad spelling

[jaxads]

Well done - go and treat yourself to a nice new pair of shoes (or 2)

[gyzmo]

Cooo......

Judge gave River Island until 4pm tomorrow to 'give me the money!'.

 

So in keeping with previous RI practice, the cheque arrived today.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I suppose claiming that the cheque didnt arrive so that you could request court bailiffs to go in and seize goods (with a large audience of course taking great glee at the spectacle) would be deemed naughty? Thought so! At least you got your money!

[DevonShrimper]

EXCELLENT result!

If you think this site helped you with your case, then we'd all be grateful if you could help it carry on doing it for others, every pound helps!

Bookworm,

Can you check the link to help, Paypal just comes up with an error message.

[Pruchniemel]

I bought a pair of shoes for my son from Sole Trader at MacArthur Glen in Bridgend on 15 August 2011.

 

However, when he wore them, after about 30 mins the toe on one foot was very sore, so he took the shoe off to see what the problem was. It turned out that the stitching in one of the shoes where one side of the tongue joins the shoe had a fault that meant it was protruding into the shoe and had rubbed against his toe making the shoe so uncomfortable that it is not wearable.

 

We therefore took the shoes back as soon as possible (i.e. 4 days later on 19 August 2011) and requested that the shoes be exchanged to a pair which did not have the faulty stitching. The lady at the shop briefly felt the inside of the shoe, and declared that there was nothing wrong with the shoe, and refused to exchange the shoes, because the shoes had been worn, albeit only for long enough for the discomfort caused by the fault to become apparent. She said that all she could do was send the shoes back to head office for "testing".

 

She duly sent the shoes back to the head office address. She also gave me the name of the Customer Services manager, Dave Mercer. After many calls to him that Friday and on Monday 22nd August (most went through to voicemail), I explained that all we wanted was a replacement pair - we were not even asking for our money back at that stage - we just wanted a pair of shoes that were wearable. He said that he would wait for the shoes to come from Bridgend and give me a call back later that week, which he did not.

 

I eventually got through to him (again after many attempts), and he said that he had "tested" the shoes, and that in his opinion there was nothing wrong with them. All he could do was send them back to the store in Bridgend for us to collect. That is where they still are. I asked the company to keep them there as I was going to seek advice.

 

The thread here shows a very similar case on the website, which was taken successfully to the small claims courts. I would like to avoid going to Court for the sake of a £29 pair of shoes, but I feel aggrieved that we have wasted £29 on a pair of shoes which cannot be worn. Hence this email to you, to see what remedies I have as the shoes are not fit for purpose.

 

Hoping someone can help and advise.