Online Retailer Refused to Accept Return

hollydays

naedanger wrote: »

Yes, but why did you say this? Clearly the op knew this already.



True but using the original packaging was not the only way of protecting the item.

And it was unreasonable to demand the original packaging, if this demand was contrary to the relevant distance selling regulations.

The op hadn't explained he'd not even received the pallet at this point.

I hadn't said the original packaging was the only way.

Yes it was unreasonable to demand it -it's clear though it's preferable for an item to be sent back properly packaged so it doesn't get damaged. The company seems to be implying it's damaged.thats the issue..too little too late apparently

naedanger

hollydays wrote: »

The op hadn't explained he'd not even received the pallet at this point.

I hadn't said the original packaging was the only way.

Yes it was unreasonable to demand it -it's clear though it's preferable for an item to be sent back properly packaged so it doesn't get damaged. The company seems to be implying it's damaged.thats the issue..too little too late apparently

I cannot see anything to indicate that the company are implying the item has been damaged. If the item had been damaged it would seem much more sensible for them to simply say so, as they would then have a legitimate reason to reject the return. Nevertheless if this is what you thought why did you not just make this point.

By simply saying "They asked for original packaging" someone who was uninformed would think that this point was relevant to their case. The obvious inference being that this was a legitimate request, and that by failing to do this the op had damaged their case. However you yourself say you knew this was not the position.

hollydays

naedanger wrote: »

I cannot see anything to indicate that the company are implying the item has been damaged. If the item had been damaged it would seem much more sensible for them to simply say so, as they would then have a legitimate reason to reject the return. Nevertheless if this is what you thought why did you not just make this point.


By simply saying "They asked for original packaging" someone who was uninformed would think that this point was relevant to their case. The obvious inference being that this was a legitimate request, and that by failing to do this the op had damaged their case. However you yourself say you knew this was not the position.

You make me laugh.
I can't help what you " think" I'm inferring.
Looking at the full post again-I see I was replying to hintzas post above .
The business referred to the item as used which along with them criticising the packaging suggest they are alleging damage through use or misuse ( in transit presumably) . what they've done isn't sensible and we will never know why they did what they did.

Do you think you are the forum prefect?

Vin2300

naedanger - thanks for your sensible replies

hollydays - I don't see what you are adding to this thread. Stop digging a hole for yourself. The item was returned in mint condition and still is despite two trips in apparently unsuitable packaging.

To clarify, the item was sent back in the original packaging except that the box and base were held together by a number of tightly tied strings. When it arrived with me, the two parts were tied together with hard plastic straps (hopefully you know the type I mean). These had to be cut for me to inspect the item and I don't think it is reasonable for a domestic customer to put new similar straps on - I don't even know where id get them from!

Anyway we have already established that the retailer is in the wrong to refuse it on the basis of the packaging, so this whole argument is irrelevant. Clearly the retailer (The Wright Buy Ltd) is ignorant of distance selling laws or is simply dishonest.

I was actually more interested in whether people thought it was too late for me do do anything about it now, and I agree it probably is. Effectively they have won because my life got busy. I did everything correctly, within their requested timescales and they just hoped I would go away.