We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

BATTECH Ltd incompatible batteries - why do customers have to pay the return postage?

This thread is started as a promise to BATTECH Ltd who trade as total-power-solutions on eBay. I promised to expose them here as a rogue company if they couldn't rectify a simple complaint. They didn't.

Their choice. We wrote to their in-house legal counsel and have given them another week since establishing that they were being wholly dilatory in handling our complaint.

The complaint is simple.

We bought a battery described as a SONY InfoLithium R Series Digital Camera Battery.

The battery did not work in our new SONY camera.

We contacted the seller and arranged to return the battery for a replacement. We paid the return postage.

Another battery arrived. It didn't work either.

Neither battery received was the one pictured in the auction.

BATTECH LTD (total-power-solutions) insisted that we also return the second battery at our own cost if we wanted a basic refund of the original cost.

I told BATTECH (total-power-solutions) they should pay for the return postages AND arrange for the PayPal refund to reflect this and an adjustment to reflect PayPal charges to us in receiving the refund. They said that they did not refund return postages because PayPal terms said the buyer must pay them. I told them which way was up and they reluctantly agreed to send a prepaid envelope for us to return the battery, which we did immediately.

In that conversation BATTECH told us they had had a large proportion of this particular battery returned and that the reason was that SONY had altered the electronics in some of their more recent cameras to prevent non-SONY batteries being used.

Anyway, we received the envelope, posted the battery back, waited two weeks and still no refund so we called again.

The guy who originally agreed the refund was on holiday, and the lady who took the call identified the case and said she would speak to someone in the finance department and unstick it.

The Result? The worst possible refund was processed i.e. the original cost only with no return postage and no adjustment to offset PayPal fees chaged against us.

I called back. "I will speak to Finance Department and ask them to look into it" she said matter of factly about six times with no alternative comment whatsoever, very much like an automaton. So I ended up speaking with her supervisor who was almost as bad. He tried to tell me that PayPal Ts&Cs were the law and that the person that sent out the prepaid envelope for the second return should not have done so, nor should they have agreed to adjust the refund in any way.

Ultimately I was offered the name of their in-house legal counsel. Apparently their 'business' is such that they employ one!

So we emailed her with a full chronology of our runaround experience.

That was a week ago.

No reply.

So this is our part of the promise.

What annoys me is that this outfit can publish 30000 feedbacks and a 99.9% positive rating (including ours based on the original prompt delivery) but the true picture is that we now know that this is a volume seller that simply doesn't handle complaints about unmerchantable quality items properly when they occur, even when their legal counsel is written to.

It is therefore a rogue company and that is why we are exposing them here.

If you want a replacement battery I suggest you think very carefully about what you would like to happen if it doesn't work when you come to use it.

The way BATTECH LTD (total-power-solutions) sees it, if they make the mistake of marketing duff product, then contrary to the common law, the affected customers are forced to share the risks and costs of getting the product back to the seller, first for a replacement and then for a final refund if the second one doesn't work either...and the seller quotes eBay and PayPal terms at you to justify their stance.

How can you tell that from 30000 99.9% positive feedbacks? You can't. You can only read it here.
«134

Comments

  • Dave_Brooker
    Dave_Brooker Posts: 1,128 Forumite
    peterbaker wrote: »

    That was a week ago.

    No reply.

    So this is our part of the promise.

    What annoys me is that this outfit can publish 30000 feedbacks and a 99.9% positive rating (including ours based on the original prompt delivery) but the true picture is that we now know that this is a volume seller that simply doesn't handle complaints about unmerchantable quality items properly when they occur, even when their legal counsel is written to.

    It is therefore a rogue company and that is why we are exposing them here.

    How much of the refund are you missing?

    "rogue company" seems a bit uncalled for....
    The money, Dave...
  • Dave_Brooker
    Dave_Brooker Posts: 1,128 Forumite
    peterbaker wrote: »
    How can you tell that from 30000 99.9% positive feedbacks? You can't. You can only read it here.

    "Items being returned to us must be issued with a returns number and the buyer is responsible for all postage and packing costs."
    The money, Dave...
  • peterbaker
    peterbaker Posts: 3,083 Forumite
    The law of England makes Unfair Contract Terms of no effect.

    The amount isn't important. Perhaps instead you might try to quantify our inconvenience if you will. I have spent no less than 90 minutes in phone calls to them.

    It isn't reasonable for an outfit to sell duff product, especially when they are already aware they have a problem, and then make the disappointed, inconvenienced customers share in the cost of returning the junk so that they in turn can obtain a credit from their supplier.

    Nor is it reasonable for a company to be dilatory in processing refunds to the extent they have to be chased, several times. Furthermore their legal counsel hasn't responded either.

    That's why it is a rogue company.
  • Dave_Brooker
    Dave_Brooker Posts: 1,128 Forumite
    peterbaker wrote: »
    The law of England makes Unfair Contract Terms of no effect.

    Don't the distance selling regs say that you can have the returns within 7 days less postage?

    And if you don't show that it's 3 months and the seller has to collect?
    The money, Dave...
  • Dave_Brooker
    Dave_Brooker Posts: 1,128 Forumite
    peterbaker wrote: »
    The amount isn't important.

    Go on, how much was it?...
    The money, Dave...
  • peterbaker
    peterbaker Posts: 3,083 Forumite
    Dave if you don't mind, as until today I had never before seen your name, would you please go elsewhere? I am sure your talents are wasted here.

    Before I posted this evening, I happened to read some other thread which I have completely forgotten. However your name appeared there too, and unfortunately for you, your reputation for being habitually and annoyingly contrary stuck.
  • Dave_Brooker
    Dave_Brooker Posts: 1,128 Forumite
    peterbaker wrote: »
    Dave if you don't mind, as until today I had never before seen your name, would you please go elsewhere? I am sure your talents are wasted here.

    Before I posted this evening, I happened to read some other thread which I have completely forgotten. However your name appeared there too, and unfortunately for you, your reputation for being habitually and annoyingly contrary stuck.

    I can see why the battery people didn't get on with you....
    The money, Dave...
  • satan666wayne
    satan666wayne Posts: 1,023 Forumite
    I can see why the battery people didn't get on with you....

    Do you remember Pete's Argos Wii thread?

    now that was fun

    Ps. Pete how is little Phillip?
  • peterbaker
    peterbaker Posts: 3,083 Forumite
    I can see why the battery people didn't get on with you....
    Well done. Perhaps then I should invite you to make a single well established stab at the antithesis ?

    Perhaps then we might all learn where we stand one way or the other?
  • Hintza
    Hintza Posts: 19,420 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I have used them before and found them fine.

    A couple of points though.

    What PayPal charges? As a buyer you incur no costs in using Paypal.

    Unfortunately a buyer must return the item to get the refund through PayPal.

    How much to post a battery back? Not a lot but I would also be very irritated.

    There accounting system probaly isn't able to to refund more than the original. As a compromise why not ask for a discount on another order.

    With that level of sales/feedback they must be doing something right.

    How much effort are you willing to put in for what I imagine is a couple of quid? It will cost you £30 to start a small claim plus all the time and effort are you willing to do that?

    One has to keep a sense of perspective in these mattter ad although very annoying I would just move on and promise myself not to deal with them again.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.