Watchshop

photome

DoaM wrote: »

Because the consumer contracts regulations and the consumer rights act allow a consumer (for distance sales) to return goods within a certain time period (30 days? Right to Reject) and the seller must accept the goods back. However the seller can reduce the amount of the refund (up to 100%) to account for the reduced value of the goods due to the consumer's handling of them.

You may not agree with it, but that's the legal position.

Thats not what the other poster said, he said they have to refund, and to go down the chargeback route, which to me isnt quite right considering it is used.


your post makes more sense

agrinnall

photome wrote: »

Thats not what the other poster said, he said they have to refund, and to go down the chargeback route, which to me isnt quite right considering it is used.


your post makes more sense

Assuming it was my post that you refer to, then you're right that DoaM has written it in a more comprehensive way than I did, but I meant the same thing without going into the detail of what they have to refund (I'd argue that 100% reduction would not be acceptable unless the watch had been returned in a totally unsellable condition). The chargeback option is a route that can be investigated if a refund is completely refused.

unholyangel

Just to add that they may not be able to make any deduction for diminished value even if the customer completely ruined the item unless they complied with providing the necessary information (basically everything covered by regulations 27 to 38 of the consumer contract regulations).