Warranty without proof of purchase?

[Andeh13]

A friend bought a Kodak all in one printer from PC World back in December. She paid in cash and never kept the receipt. The printer has now packed up again, after only 3 months.

She contacted Kodak with the serial number etc asking for it to be sorted under warranty but they said that they need proof of purchase. PC World doesn't have a record of the purchase (due to cash?) and have been unable to help further.

Are Kodak right to deny her warranty help without proof of purchase? Surely the serial number etc is enough to prove the printer is only a couple of months old?


Cheers guys

[Rob_B]

PCWorld DO have a record of the receipt, if she can tell them the date of purchase it will be stored on the system, they can search for the product code on that day paid for by cash et voila! If the store are being funny about it tell her to call customer services as I believe they can search too.

As for Kodak, I'd say if she cannot prove when she bought it they're within their rights to ask for proof of purchase

[finlay666]

PC World doesn't have a record of the purchase (due to cash?) and have been unable to help further.

I call BS on PC World

Many moons ago Comet policy (for pretty much exactly this reason, so I can't see DSGi being different) was to take customer details so the transaction can be found even if a receipt is lost, they also took an address for verifying it is who they said it was.

[Andeh13]

I always though that a serial number would be enough to confirm proof of.purchwse etc. My dealings with Logitech and various hard drive manufacturers has enabled me to make warranty claims without an original receipt?

[blueball]

I always though that a serial number would be enough to confirm proof of.purchwse etc. My dealings with Logitech and various hard drive manufacturers has enabled me to make warranty claims without an original receipt?

Serial number will imply date of manufacture, hopefully it was manufactured recently enough that even if you bought it on the day it was made it would still be under warranty, in which case they should honour the warranty.

[Behemoth]

If she paid less than £100 for it, it will not have triggered a name and addresc capture, so trying to find the correct receipt on a DSGI system will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Having worked for them I know how the system works.

Receipt is not a legal requirement and stores are under no obligation to give them, but they can resonably ask for it if they believe there is no contract with them.

[Rob_B]

If she paid less than £100 for it, it will not have triggered a name and addresc capture, so trying to find the correct receipt on a DSGI system will be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

They still using ECLIPSE? If they know the date of purchase and the product code it's easy...? No name/address required.

[Behemoth]

Yeah they are still on Eclipse, but as it's cash transaction they still won't be able to identify the correct purchase.

[Rob_B]

Depends how many of that product were bought on that day, if one then she's sorted

[Unique]

I always though that a serial number would be enough to confirm proof of.purchwse etc. My dealings with Logitech and various hard drive manufacturers has enabled me to make warranty claims without an original receipt?

no, as the item could have been stolen, etc. stores want them so they can tell you bought it from them and not another store and you are using them to get a refund. as warranties are usually non tranferable and only relate to the original buyer, manufacturers perhaps want to know you are the original buyer so they can avoid some returns, and perhaps so they can tell how much you paid for it in case they can't repair/replace and have to offer a replacement. if you got a display model or refurb the receipt may reflect this

[jim]

I always though that a serial number would be enough to confirm proof of.purchwse etc. My dealings with Logitech and various hard drive manufacturers has enabled me to make warranty claims without an original receipt?

All depends on the terms of the warranty - if the warranty states that a receipt is required, then it is. If the warranty states that a receipt isn't required, then it isn't.

[Rob_B]

All depends on the terms of the warranty - if the warranty states that a receipt is required, then it is. If the warranty states that a receipt isn't required, then it isn't.

Technically shouldn't that be 'proof of purchase' ? In this case the only proof possible is a receipt but I wonder how warranty 'proof' differs to a retailers obligations under the SOGA ?

[Blaidd59]

The retailer’s obligations

If there is an obvious fault with the item at any time within the first 6 months and it has not been caused by wear and tear or misuse, your first port of call must be the shop you bought it from. They have the responsibility to put the matter right, and should not evade this responsibility by referring you to the manufacturer in the context of a guarantee or warranty.

In the first instance and if considered appropriate, the seller must offer to at least repair the goods. They must do this within reasonable time, at no additional cost to you and without causing any significant inconvenience. If any inconvenience is caused you should be given a replacement item on a ‘like for like’ basis (and not simply the cheapest and most basic model). Many consumer complaints relate to the length of time the item is away being repaired – and although you must allow reasonable time for repair, the law does not say what ‘reasonable time’ is. It very much depends on the item itself and the nature of the problem. For most things, shops would usually allow you to exchange the item or give you your money back straight away. However, if the damage is minor and can be repaired easily, then the shop can insist on this as a first option, although this will not stop you from taking it back if the repair is unsatisfactory or there is something else wrong with it.

If a repair is impossible or unfeasible, you must then be offered a replacement. Due to the emphasis on proportionality in this legislation, you must give the seller reasonable time to repair or replace before demanding your money back and you should be aware that any refund given may well take account of any use you have had of the goods since you took possession of them. If you do not want the seller to repair or replace, or they have told you they are unable to, you can then request they reduce the purchase price to an appropriate amount, although this does not affect your ability to take return the item if something else goes wrong

Proof of purchase?

Shops will often tell you they will only give a refund on production of proof of purchase. Don’t be misled into thinking this must be a till receipt. It can be a bank or credit card statement, although you may run into difficulties if it is for a different amount than that of the item you are trying to return.

If the item is damaged, the shop cannot say they will only refund on the basis of a till receipt. However you must have proof of purchase of some kind – particularly if it was bought recently and you want to show that the damage wasn’t caused by continued use or wear and tear over time.


Where you have no rights

If you were aware of the defect before you bought it
If you bought it from a private buyer on a non-commercial basis (i.e. not a shop)
If you were invited to carry out a thorough inspection of the product and fail to spot a defect which that inspection ought to have revealed
You simply changed your mind or the item was not appropriate due to colour, size or style
The item is dirty and the mark can be removed easily at home. This is not the same as damage and shops are not obliged to give you any discount

[jim]

Technically shouldn't that be 'proof of purchase' ? In this case the only proof possible is a receipt but I wonder how warranty 'proof' differs to a retailers obligations under the SOGA ?

As I said, depends what the warranty states. Unless someone has the terms to hand we're not really going to know.

Yes, AFAIK under SOGA the term used is proof of purchase, but the point I'm trying to make is that there's no reason why a warranty should have the same qualifications/limitations.