A.O. - do returns conditions reduce your rights?

DoaM

unholyangel wrote: »

... rather than objectivity subjectivity.

I think that's what you meant.

Zandoni

If the picture quality is bad I'd argue that the TV is defective.

abssorb

Boodedoo wrote: »

Is this condition about the product being 'used' unreasonable , or am I just miffed?

I had something similar recently with an Amazon marketplace retailer. In my case I didn't even accept the goods, and didn't even open the packaging (I knew I had been sent the wrong one), but they wouldn't back down. 10% on all returns, end of, fingers-in-ears.
I escalated this with Amazon, but they just folded and gave me money. I wasn't out of pocket but the dodgy company's T&C are still there.

When I was discussing this with colleagues the other days - there's a rumour This is the latest trend in T&Cs imported from the US.

In the US restocking and handling fees are commonplace and whenever you search google for internet wisdom, it's much accepted by US respondents and there's an overwhelming amount of results that this practice is Normal.

But it doesn't apply here. UK laws prevent this from being used as a blanket return surcharge on all returns. But it's still being exploited. Companies know that if you go and look it up, you're going to find lots of google results saying "that's the way it is" and they know a certain percentage will give up.

One for trading standards to clarify on with UK businesses perhaps. If only that would do any good...

Boodedoo

UPDATE

Apologies, I have only just seen the other replies.
Despite being told in here they were within their rights to deduct from the refund, as I had plugged the tv in, I still felt that as I wasn't returning just because I had changed my mind, but because both the picture quality and sound quality were not as they implied on their site.
So I emailed and reiterated my disappointment that the picture wasn't the 'breathtaking visual' they had said and that the sound was not good either.
I also said that I felt that, though this condition about a reduced refund if the item has been plugged in is on the site, that I thought that was both unfair and unreasonable as it negated my statutory right to reject goods under these circumstances and I would, for now, UNDER PROTEST accept their offer of a 10% reduction. I asked them to arrange collection and process the refund.

TV was collected next day and the refund has now gone back to the card I paid with. I can see the refund on the card statement online.

FOR THE FULL AMOUNT :-)

I suspect they would claim it was refunded in full as a gesture of goodwill rather than what they were obliged to do, but suspect that as I had thought, these sort of conditions printed on their site do limit customers rights (in certain circumstances such as the ones I had experienced) and because I was persistent they made a full refund.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

[Deleted User]

Boodedoo wrote: »

because I was persistent they made a full refund.

Yes, they just wanted to be rid of you I'm afraid.

Well done on getting the full amount.

shaun_from_Africa

If/when you decide on another TV, I would suggest John Lewis or Richer sounds as they normally both have very good customer service and a 5 year warranty on TV's.