An application for consideration of a consumer dispute has been filed with the applicant N.D.T., with an address in the city of V. The consumer sets out in detail the facts regarding a dispute with a trader operating in a shoe store "P. M", located in the Grand MALL Varna. On 25.02.2022, the consumer purchased shoes of the brand L. model from Italy from the trader. Within the warranty period, the consumer filed a complaint for the first time. For this, a document representing a Protocol for a registered complaint has been duly issued. The consumer was unlawfully seized from the original cash receipt for the sale. During a subsequent meeting, it was established that the shoes were not repaired, and the soles were irreversibly damaged, as they were burned. The company's employees explicitly stated that the shoes could not be repaired. The consumer claims that the shoes should not be repaired anymore, and that their value be restored in full.
When proceedings were initiated at the Consensus Consumer Protection and Consumer Protection Center, the conciliator sent the trader a request for an opinion. A copy of the consumer's application with the attached documents in PDF format with personal data deleted was provided.
A response from attorney M.N. was received by the Center's e-mail, without a power of attorney for representation from the trader. As can be seen from the content, the trader refused to enter into conciliation proceedings with the consumer.
The letter claims that the shoes in dispute have been repaired. It is alleged that in the presence of several employees, the consumer refused to receive the repaired product. An undated letter from R.Z. (manufacturer) was attached to the response with alleged data on receipt of a shipment with No. .......... (without indication of a forwarder), containing men's shoes of the specified brand and model. Contrary to the claims of attorney M.N., the manufacturer indicates that he did not find any damage in the product that could be repaired.
From a factual point of view, the dispute is not clarified, since the trader does not present any evidence of how and under what conditions he repaired the advertised product, and from the documents submitted by him it is evident that this did not happen in the Italian manufacturing company. Doubts about the correct attitude of the trader are also raised by the fact that, contrary to the existing clear, notorious and imperative regulatory regulation, he obliged the consumer to submit an original receipt when advertising the product, thus leaving him without an original proof of the transaction. Since the trader did not replace the product, did not reverse the sale transaction, his motive for requesting the original receipt for the sale of the advertised shoes remains unclear.
The trader explicitly expresses his disagreement with participation. On the basis of Art. 16 of the Rules for conducting a conciliation procedure, a ground for terminating the consideration of conciliation proceedings at the Center has been established. The consumer has been given instructions that he can exercise his rights before the relevant competent Conciliation Commission of the Consumer Protection Act or report to the Consumer Protection Act for a violation of Article 103b of the Consumer Protection Act.
