WorldDutyFree Won't Accept My Refund For Raybans

LilElvis

agrinnall wrote: »

Dirt on the nose pad suggests that the use they have had is rather more than just trying them on to see how they look, unless the person you gave them to has an excessively filthy face!

I only have to put my sunglasses on for 2 seconds and they have "dirt" on the nose piece - it's called makeup. It also takes 2 seconds to wipe it off

JENN

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Precisely this. Why should the outcome of this be you back in the position you started, while they have to do some rectification work for nothing?


Besides which, if you bought some new RayBans and found out they had been "rectified" after someone else had slightly scratched them or dirtied them, would you be happy with that? I would guess not. Yet you want them to sell to another customer in that state.

wealdroam wrote: »

Sure you can wipe fingerprints off, but why didn't you do that?

How do you suggest they remove the scratch, and why should they do that?

Right ok, let me clear some things up, cause it seems you two are very eager to attack me on the conditions of the sunglasses, saying that I should of cleaned them and what not.

But my argument is the EXCUSES that they have given me was due to desperation of having no significant reasons to refuse my refund.

Proof?
imgur.
com/
a/ZsjwF They sent me these pictures as evidence to the sunglasses not being in the same condition.

Please tell me is the dirt and finger prints so SIGNIFICANT that I cannot even spot in those photos? I pay £7 for delivery every time I send it back... They make a massive deal out of seemingly nothing, and cannot even be bothered to correct it.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

People try on sunglasses in the shops all the time, so how big of a deal would it be to find sunglasses with a bit of dirt on the nosepad and finger prints on the lenses?

I just don't buy these excuses from WorldDutyFree, I understand that I may not be entitled to a refund because its a unwanted gift, but I rather they tell me that instead of giving me lame excuses.

shaun_from_Africa

I can't see any fingerprints but there is definitely a scuff on the case in the first picture.
http://imgur.com/a/ZsjwF
Granted, it's not much of a scuff but it's still a scuff.
Whether that was there before you made the purchase or it happened when you had them is anyone's guess but it's still there.

wealdroam

imgur.com/a/ZsjwF

What about the scratch on the case which is clearly visible in the first picture?

What about the packaging damage in the third picture?

shaun_from_Africa

wealdroam wrote: »

What about the packaging damage in the third picture?

Despite looking at that picture I totally missed the reason for them showing it.
Damaged packaging is definitely a reasonable reason for refusing a refund as it will make reselling the glasses at their full price a bit harder.

cmthephoenix

[QUOTE=JENN;70268016
But my argument is the EXCUSES that they have given me was due to desperation of having no significant reasons to refuse my refund.
QUOTE]


If you had received the glasses and case in this condition would you have wanted to accept them as new goods? I certainly wouldn't. Unless you are saying you received them in that condition, they can either make a deduction for receiving second hand goods back or return them to you at your expense.