Section 75 failed

Ukmatt

Bought a watch online from a nationwide jewellery chain. It arrived and I came to the conclusion it is used/display as there is a scratch next to the bezel and fingerprints on the strap. :mad: Time wasters.
Returned it asap by RM special delivery.

RM tried to send it back to me as delivery failed. I missed the return so have to collect from RM.

Tried to do section 75 but the bank refused as the merchant is willing to accept the goods back.

Any suggestions? I'm annoyed most of all at the waste of time and disappointment.
I will attempt to return again, if the merchant sends a new delivery envelope.

dieselv2

You can't get a refund plus hold the watch. Have you told them it's being returned? Merchants will reject if they've not been informed.

Ukmatt

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, I informed them. I told them it had been sent back to me and gave them the tracking number... it was a prepaid and pre-addressed envelope supplied by them after I requested return. Still no answer as to why it was sent back to me!

I don't want the watch, don't expect to keep it. It's currently with RM as I've not had time to collect.

chattychappy

Frankly I'd probably just sue the shop since it is an established chain. I'd put the CC as a second defendant (because of s75). I'd write a letter first to warn them that's what I'm going to do. Hopefully after issuing the claim (if not before) someone will be in touch with you to resolve the matter.

The bank can't blame you for still having the watch when you attempted to return it using the merchant's preferred method. An alternative would be to make a written complaint and then having exhausted their complaints procedure go to the FOS.

If you are able to pick up the watch from Royal Mail, then I would do this. Any extra expense incurred (within reason) can form part of your claim. It will only complicate matters if the watch gets lost.

jonesMUFCforever

How much did the watch cost?

WillyWonga

chattychappy wrote: »

Frankly I'd probably just sue the shop since it is an established chain. I'd put the CC as a second defendant (because of s75). I'd write a letter first to warn them that's what I'm going to do. Hopefully after issuing the claim (if not before) someone will be in touch with you to resolve the matter.

The bank can't blame you for still having the watch when you attempted to return it using the merchant's preferred method. An alternative would be to make a written complaint and then having exhausted their complaints procedure go to the FOS.

If you are able to pick up the watch from Royal Mail, then I would do this. Any extra expense incurred (within reason) can form part of your claim. It will only complicate matters if the watch gets lost.

The watch has been returned once for a reason unbeknown which will become clear once gone to sorting office. For a simple matter which can easily be resolved why go in with your size 10's and start firing off legal letters etc wasting more time.

Pick up the parcel, speak to the staff as to why they think it was returned and take from there. One attempt at returning with no valid reason for return aint a defence for being Mr Grumpy.

chattychappy

WillyWonga wrote: »

The watch has been returned once for a reason unbeknown which will become clear once gone to sorting office. For a simple matter which can easily be resolved why go in with your size 10's and start firing off legal letters etc wasting more time.

Pick up the parcel, speak to the staff as to why they think it was returned and take from there. One attempt at returning with no valid reason for return aint a defence for being Mr Grumpy.

Fair enough, but the OP has already had his "time wasted" by this retailer who sent second hand goods as new. Who's to blame for the delivery problem is an open question, but it still represents more "time wasted" by the OP as a result of the original error/fraud etc.

The purpose of the letter is to set out the problem and demand a refund. Hopefully matters will then be resolved. It should be formal and polite.

In my experience, where time gets wasted is people being given the runaround. Phone calls, unreturned messages, emails, comment forms etc etc. I believe in starting the legal process early (just a letter in the first place) and this can run in parallel. The purpose is to avoid wasting time.

Nasqueron

Did the returns process require you to get an RMA number from them before returning it and add that on the returns envelope? If so, did you do that? I've seen returns stuff like that where it says that without a returns number it would be rejected

MEM62

It's not a Section 75 issue if the retailer has agreed to accept the watch back. I am at a loss as to understand why you didn't simply sort the return delivery issue instead of making a Section 75 claim? This makes no sense.


And as for responses suggesting litigation, that's going nowhere. It will just lumber the OP with additional frustration and expense for a case that won't make it past first base.

DCFC79

Yes my suggestion is to send the watch back for a refund. IMO its a bit early for the section 75 route.