Amazon Gift Return and Replacement Policy

BoroBurd

Hello,

My brother purchased a Wii Console inDecember 2013 online from Amazon, which was despatched directly by them. This was a Christmas present for my son.

He paid £91.03 by credit card and the item was sent to his address according to contract. So far, so good.

About a month ago, my son and I identified that the console was faulty. I contacted Amazon Customer Services to advise them of this and that the item was a gift. They suggested initially that a replacement be sent to my brother. This was not a practical solution unfortunately as my brother no longer lived at the address where the original item was despatched.

Their alternative solution was to send me a returns label so I could post the faulty item back to them. Upon them receiving the console, they then advised me they would e mail me a credit note to the value of £91.03.

I received the returns label but then discovered I had to pay for my own postage when returning the console. This cost me over £14 which I have later discovered, from their own terms and conditions, should have been paid for by them in lieu that the console was faulty.

Worse, when I came to replace the item myself, I discovered that it would cost me £144 – over £53 more than what had originally been paid. I therefore contacted Amazon’s Customer Services for their help, explaining the item was still in warranty and requested they therefore cover the difference in cost. They refused, and although they did manage to find an alternative for £124, - I am still over £30 out of pocket.

This really doesn’t sound correct to me. Whilst I appreciate this is the return of a gift – it was faulty. It only sounds reasonable that they should replace it free of charge. Please would you let me know if this is something they are allowed to do or if can contest this.

Thanks.

cajef

BoroBurd wrote: »

Hello,

My brother purchased a Wii Console inDecember 2013

.

How did he manage to purchase something in December 2013 when it is only October 2013 now.

earthstorm

cajef wrote: »

How did he manage to purchase something in December 2013 when it is only October 2013 now.

maybe its the same Amazon bug that tracked my item and told me it had been delivered and signed for 300 miles away 6 months before i actually purchased the item

visidigi

cajef wrote: »

How did he manage to purchase something in December 2013 when it is only October 2013 now.

I guess its December 2012.

earthstorm wrote: »

maybe its the same Amazon bug that tracked my item and told me it had been delivered and signed for 300 miles away 6 months before i actually purchased the item

That's not an Amazon bug, that's the courier allowing reuse of a tracking number, perfectly normal - usually done after 90 days of the original ship date when they are running low on numbers...

unholyangel

OP you're probably not going to like this but.....they're actually doing more than they needed to legally.

I say that somewhat hesitantly as technically you shouldve been reimbursed postage costs (do they require a receipt/was such a receipt sent to them?). However...they didnt need to refund the total price paid. They are allowed to deduct an amount to account for usage had. This is providing you do indeed mean dec 2012 btw

Many retailers dont deduct anything if it fails within the first year but the law allows them to (unless perhaps they have their own policy which states you'll get a full refund within x time - although this would be contractual rather than statutory).

Regarding the replacement....it only has to be like for like. Unfortunately for us consumers......that usually includes age of the item too. In other words..if going the replacement route they could technically give you a secondhand replacement, since its a 10 month old console you've lost, not a brand new one (so brand new would be considered a betterment - not something the law entitles you to).

And lastly, although you can request one remedy over another (repair, replace, refund - which can be partial as above), the retailer can refuse if disproportionately costly. They can also request that the consumer prove it is inherently faulty if it has been more than 6 months from purchasing). And unless the item was specifically bought as a gift (ie retailer were aware of it being a gift at time of purchase) then your son technically doesnt have any statutory rights.

SuperHan

unholyangel wrote: »

OP you're probably not going to like this but.....they're actually doing more than they needed to legally.

I say that somewhat hesitantly as technically you shouldve been reimbursed postage costs (do they require a receipt/was such a receipt sent to them?). However...they didnt need to refund the total price paid. They are allowed to deduct an amount to account for usage had. This is providing you do indeed mean dec 2012 btw

Many retailers dont deduct anything if it fails within the first year but the law allows them to (unless perhaps they have their own policy which states you'll get a full refund within x time - although this would be contractual rather than statutory).

Regarding the replacement....it only has to be like for like. Unfortunately for us consumers......that usually includes age of the item too. In other words..if going the replacement route they could technically give you a secondhand replacement, since its a 10 month old console you've lost, not a brand new one (so brand new would be considered a betterment - not something the law entitles you to).

And lastly, although you can request one remedy over another (repair, replace, refund - which can be partial as above), the retailer can refuse if disproportionately costly. They can also request that the consumer prove it is inherently faulty if it has been more than 6 months from purchasing). And unless the item was specifically bought as a gift (ie retailer were aware of it being a gift at time of purchase) then your son technically doesnt have any statutory rights.

Aside from this, they have no contract with you, and as such by doing ANYTHING they have gone above and beyond their duties.

pmduk

Amazon ask if a purchase is a gift at time of purchase. If they were notified of this, I understand the purchaser's legal rights are transferred to the recipient. Perhaps someone can confirm my understanding?

mattyprice4004

I don't understand why people think they're entitled to a replacement, even if the price has gone up.
You're not - the retailer can refuse any remedy if it's disproportionately costly (which replacement will be if it's gone up in price) so they've done nothing wrong.

unholyangel

pmduk wrote: »

Amazon ask if a purchase is a gift at time of purchase. If they were notified of this, I understand the purchaser's legal rights are transferred to the recipient. Perhaps someone can confirm my understanding?

See the last few lines of post #5

And unless the item was specifically bought as a gift (ie retailer were aware of it being a gift at time of purchase) then your son technically doesnt have any statutory rights

If it was bought as a gift, then that would have formed part of the contract at time of sale.

BoroBurd

Thanks Unholyangel. It makes a lot of sense that if it is made clear that the item IS a gift at the time of purchase, and they agree that the purchasers' rights transfer to the receiver - then there is no reason why this cannot form part of the contract. I shall keep this in mind at Christmas myself!

I can be quite confusing as some suppliers have replaced items still in warranty - even when the cost has increased (which I discovered Argos were reasonable enough to do).

Cheers.:beer: