The Law and Such, Help:)

[woodchip50]

your boss gave in?

what crap!

as has been explained she shouldn't have been given the extra food.

and yep. as far as the law is concerned you could have gotten the police involved.

[albabonzai]

As far as i am aware age other than in the selling of restricted items ie drink and tabacoo etc is not applicable. That would be the same as saying dont sell that kinder egg to the kidd as his mum aint here. Its the owners discression, and dude i am so sorry it took me a long time to type that out that i fir some reason said jake!! hmm lol. xx

[fredv3b]

One piece of advice. Don't sink to their level and join them in a slanging match.

[Pickles]

No she was wrong. I dont think that you could get a re-fund for fast food fourteen days later. The idea of that is stupid. She is clearly stupid ;D

Anywho yes. You did the right thing. And when she got abusive you shold have reported her. After all you did nothing wrong, and the police take racism very seriously. I work in an Indian and Ive watched the plice tackle coustomers for insulting the poeople I work for. A no nonesense policy should betaken in your work place, and u had the right to should back at her. Its called being passive (well you could claim that it was passive, but from the way you said, it sounded like you were being pretty agressive) anyway. You did the right thing. If she comes in again though, feel free to tell her to get out. You're perfectly in your right to do that too. The fast food industry rocks

[Mark]

Okay as far as I understand under UK law the customer has 7 days which is counted as a 'cooling off' period where they can simply take back or cancel an order without giving a reason.

After this it is up to the outlet themselves on what they wish to give.. For example Primark stores gives 28 days return policy with receipt.. Marks and Spencers (last time i knew) do 31 days.. but it is at the stores discretion UNLESS the item is say on sale and clearly marked and conveyed that it is outside of the returns policy.

However that is items such as electrical goods and clothes.. (Btw if the item is either faulty or unfit.. or say you buy a top with a hole in.. or a tv has dead pixels then the store HAS to offer a replacement or refund providing this is within a 6 months - year time period... some electrical goods may last longer? but essentially the store takes the item back to the agent where they bought it from and claims the money back - so no money is lost)

Regarding food.. I think this is completely different? Im not fully aware of the law regarding food - but the relationship and contract of the sale is formed once the money has been paid and the order delivered. You didn't say whether she ate the order then complained or?? But traditionally if you have any complaints about an order made it should be made clear and dealt with before the food has been eaten.. and im not sure if your a take away or?? But simply ringing up expressing the problem they normally come and swap it out of goodwill and loyalty for the customer..

So what she was screaming about I don't think counts regarding food? But if she brought back the order and stated it was a misunderstanding most places would rectify the problem out of good will?

But the fact you argued back and if you did say something abusive then yup you are in the wrong - and it wouldnt be completely unreasonable for the customer to ask for punishment towards you. But again completely up to your places rules?

[sox-and-the-city]

Okay as far as I understand under UK law the customer has 7 days which is counted as a 'cooling off' period where they can simply take back or cancel an order without giving a reason...

However that is items such as electrical goods and clothes.. (Btw if the item is either faulty or unfit.. or say you buy a top with a hole in.. or a tv has dead pixels then the store HAS to offer a replacement or refund providing this is within a 6 months - year time period... some electrical goods may last longer? but essentially the store takes the item back to the agent where they bought it from and claims the money back - so no money is lost)

Ah, you see that's actually a misconception. The law is that the MANUFACTURER has to provide a replacement or refund if the product is faulty within the first 6 months of proven purchase so if the customer doesn't have a reciept they technically don't have a leg to stand on. Techincally as vendors we have no responsibility to refund the customer, as we don't actually MAKE the clothes. Store returns policies are there as goodwill and are at staff discretion.

If you don't want to, there's always a reason to refuse a customer a refund. It's just that most managers fear complaints too much to stand up to them.

I learned all that over christmas when we temporarily suspended our refunds policy and I had to refuse customers everything. I remember one woman told me she'd travelled fifty miles to be there. I pointed out i'd woken up at 4am in EDINBURGH and travelled three hours by train to be there. hee hee hee

Did i ever tell you all the period skirt story??

[Mark]

Ah, you see that's actually a misconception. The law is that the MANUFACTURER has to provide a replacement or refund if the product is faulty within the first 6 months of proven purchase so if the customer doesn't have a reciept they technically don't have a leg to stand on. Techincally as vendors we have no responsibility to refund the customer, as we don't actually MAKE the clothes. Store returns policies are there as goodwill and are at staff discretion.

Not true with the clothing store example - As say for Primark or Tesco - Topman or Marks and Spencers it is the stores duty to provide a replacement :biggrin: Working on the returns in Primark and organising the money back owed to Primark for faulty goods returned the manufacturer of the clothes like most places do not want to deal with the end user and only their customer which is the clothing store. If the store has sold unfit items then the store is held responsible but as I said simply S&D the item.

And with the receipt thing again, I'm taking it that you are referring to electrical goods with the back to manufacturer example which in that case 9/10 items have a serial number - This serial number is almost always recorded therefore proving purchase.

Only recently I had to return a freeview box with a HDD to tesco that I had for christmas due to it being faulty (No receipt or box, and 9 months after original purchase), due to it being faulty they HAD to replace it or refund - and as it had the serial number on it they knew the exact date.

Business law is very tricky - but at the end of the day the law has been updated quite frequently and wildly over the past few years to give the customer and consumer a stronger position. :biggrin:

Then its completely different again if the item has been marked with a guarantee of 2 years say the manufacturer has to also offer a replacement with this sort of length :biggrin:

[Mark]

If you don't want to, there's always a reason to refuse a customer a refund. It's just that most managers fear complaints too much to stand up to them.

I learned all that over christmas when we temporarily suspended our refunds policy and I had to refuse customers everything. I remember one woman told me she'd travelled fifty miles to be there. I pointed out i'd woken up at 4am in EDINBURGH and travelled three hours by train to be there.

What store do you work at because that is really bad service suspending a refunds policy that was already set in place? Was it made clear on receipts and that? Because if not then that store is actually breaking various laws :confused: But over Christmas as well? That's rubbish.

And you can never full out deny a refund as there are various acts such as the consumer goods act and various others that override such things. So there isn't always a reason to deny a refund without breaking a few Acts/Laws and getting into serious trouble.

[sox-and-the-city]

Remembering that refund policies are offered in ADDITION to statutory rights, they are, actually, entirely discretional and can be abandoned at any time, should they so choose. It's generally POLICY that noone would ever do that because it'd piss off a helluva lot of people.

Lots of places do it over peak sales weeks to 'minimise waiting times in queues' aka. maximise profit, and the refund policy on all affected purchases was extended to the end of January and yes, it was very clearly signed, and on all the reciepts.

My point was yes you can refuse a return, but that wouldn't be very good customer service now, would it??

Oh, and if it boils down to it we have the right to refuse service, too...

You pointed out yourself that Primark recovers the costs from faulty goods sold, did you not?? I was merely pointing out a technicality...

[fredv3b]

Ah, you see that's actually a misconception. The law is that the MANUFACTURER has to provide a replacement or refund if the product is faulty within the first 6 months of proven purchase so if the customer doesn't have a reciept they technically don't have a leg to stand on. Techincally as vendors we have no responsibility to refund the customer, as we don't actually MAKE the clothes.

Sox, I am afraid that I must disagree with your legal opinion regarding the lack of responsibility of the vendor. According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 goods sold must be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose intended. If I buy something and within a reasonable period of time find it to be of unsatisfactory quality or otherwise unfit for the purpose intended then I have a right to a replacement from the vendor or if that is not practicable a refund or other reasonable remedy. As I understand the law the retailer has a similar rights against a wholesaler, who in tern has simular rights against the manufacturer.