Why oh why in this day and age do I find myself having legal arguments with big name stores over things as petty as a damn blanket! Does business reputation and customer satisfaction not mean anything these days? Do some companies think that their size makes them impervious to being toppled by a simple self-richeous know-it-all as they hide behind their loopholes sniggering at how damn clever they are at getting one over the average Joe?
'Customer Services' - the words themselves create hope that the injustice you have suffered will be rectified via a speedy investigation. In my (sometimes warped) mind I picture the scene where my complaint is immediately received by an eager ray ban wearing avenging angel who rapidly hits the alarm sending red lights streaming and sirens blaring across the futuristic 'minority report' style office space. Cut to a group of highly skilled private detectives gathered around a table listing the issues I have highlighted and pinpointing their origin with every reference number, order number, store number, item number and CCTV (accumulated in nanoseconds) at their disposal. Within minutes I have received notification that the Customer Service Investigators (CSI - see what I did there!) has resolved my issue and that a replacement is on the way along with video footage of the greasy haired prepubescent cretin who caused me to write a complaint being given a public bollocking before being frogmarched out of the store with his p45 in hand! Never happens though does it! It's more likely that you'll get an over worded formal (and now pretty standard) version of 'Tough Shit!' That's if you get any response at all.
'Terms and Conditions' - Designed to be millions of pages of size 2 font constructed in such a way so that 99.9% of consumers will be discouraged from reading them (how many of you have simply clicked 'I agree' button at the bottom without checking the T&C first?). For all you know they could have written that on the third Friday of every month five clowns will descend on your doorstep to pillage your knicker drawer of your finest undergarments and charge you for the privilege. But you can bet your granny pants that somewhere, sandwiched in the deepest realms of their alleged watertight alibi there will be the phrase 'Your statutory rights are not affected' Ah ha! a lifeline! The best explanation of this phrase that I have found is as follows:
"You often see signs in shops at the counter which say ‘this does not affect your statutory rights’. But what does this mean? What we are talking about here are the legal obligations of retailers and suppliers to protect consumers from fraud, poor quality, misrepresentation or economic loss. The sale of goods is subject to the inclusion of these statutory rights (or terms), whether or not a written contract exists and whether or not they are specifically mentioned at any stage. Any attempt to mislead you or deny you of them is illegal!"
I strongly advise UK residents to read this (and the equivalent document for non-UK residents). It summarises the key points in The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54).
Recently I undertook a mission (one of my many missions) on behalf of my mum who was having difficulties obtaining a replacement for a faulty item that had been delivered the day before she made her initial complaint. My mum had splashed out a small fortune on one of those swing/climbing frame/slide/treehouse combinations for her growing brood of grandchildren. One of the extras she had paid for was a baby swing for my 8 month old son. When the item arrived it was packaged in layers and layers of plastic packaging. The heavily accented foreign driver had thrusted the delivery sheet at my mum, demanded a signature, entered the property and dumped the items before quickly driving off. After sending an e-mail to the supplier she got the following response from customer services 'you signed the form saying that you checked the item therefore we will not replace it, however feel free to purchase another one'. My mum replied that she had signed for delivery only and they replied that she had 'ticked the box' to say she had checked the items. 'Ah ha I exclaim again! You see in this country the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor (i.e. the supplier in this instance) they have to collect the evidence and bring the case, the onus is never on the defendant (i.e. my mum) to prove her innocence. In my opinion a 'tick' is not proof of anything, a 'tick' can be administered by anyone. However they were adamant that they were covered legally and had not abused mums consumer rights. They even stated the following "This must end our correspondence on this issue as we have given you a reasonable answer. Please note we will not reply on this issue further". Well Joolz QC was on the case, it was now my turn to play prosecutor, and if I was going to take them down I was going to do it in style! I obtained detailed pictures of the fault, I trawled the internet researching my consumer rights, I located the registration information for the supplier and noted down their primary address and their registered address and I found out who their managing director was and details of any shareholders. I even read their epic terms and conditions. I called Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), who automatically has to report them to trading standards (TS) and I sent the supplier one of my strongly worded letters which included the following:
a) the issue behind the complaint
b) facts of the purchase
c) details regarding the correspondence to date including copies of the e-mails sent by customer services
d) events surrounding the delivery and any witnesses that were present when the item was opened. I also put in a brief concern about their quality control and the potential health and safety implications of their products
e) a paragraph about how their own driver violated their own terms and conditions by entering the property when he was only insured to deliver kerbside, therefore invalidating their insurance and possibly the terms and conditions as a whole ... oh and that mum had CCTV to prove this
f) 'the kick in the nuts' - quoting the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that their item was not fit for purpose, that they are duty bound to offer a repair/replacement/refund and that any item that develops a fault in the first 6 months of purchase is deemed to have had that fault at the time of purchase and a repair/replacement/refund must be offered (irrespective of whether a note that the item had been checked by the customer is in existence). The failure of the company to acknowledge mums consumer rights was in fact an illegal offence contrary to the Act mentioned.
g) an annex including pictures of the fault
h) a final comment that CAB and TS had been notified.
I made two copies of this document and sent them by recorded delivery to the Managing Director at two addresses found online. We received a replacement and an apology (although phrased as a 'goodwill gesture') within a week ... which was broken. I contacted them again and received a replacement within a few days without question.
We are in an economic crisis, food costs and bills are going through the roof as our salaries stagnate below inflation. Do bullyboy companies think we are going to lie down and take being ripped off and conned out of the few pennies we have left. They use pseudo-polite threats to scare you away from ensuring they stand by their legal obligations. Now there are some companies, normally small ones, who do slip by the wayside but do not let their incompetence be confused with criminality.
So to anyone branded with the job title 'Customer Services' beware my wrath, you will not be free from my quest for consumer justice until I am pushing up flowers with my army of worms!!
Joolz x
