Faulty Item Delivered - When should the retailer refund me? They want me to pay return postage

kingblah

I bought some ecigarette pods from an online retailer. When I contacted them to let them know the pods were faulty, as they only lasted a day (usual usage is meant to last up to 3 weeks as advertised - previous usage of these pods gave me 3 weeks) - they initially blamed it on me. When I went back to them to insist that they were faulty, they're asking me to post them for inspection.

I let them know of the fault 24 hours after receipt of the items, this is when it failed.

They said they'd only refund the cost of the return postage "if a fault is found" and that I'd have to pay for it first. They haven't stated whether they'd refund me at all but said that they'd decide once "they're inspected for fault".

What are my rights here? I don't trust this retailer at all, and I'm concerned their "inspection" will somehow reveal no fault at all (even though they are!)

Thanks!

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Goods are deemed to be faulty within the first 6 months but if you are asking for a full refund within 30 days (short term right to reject), my understanding is that doesn't apply.

They do have the right to inspect the goods.

They should cover the cost of the return postage if the goods are faulty which they appear to be offering.

If they disagreed that the goods were faulty you'd need an independent report to demonstrate otherwise.

kingblah

Thanks! So would my understanding be that faulty goods reported in the first 30 days result in reduced rights than in the first 6 months? That seems a tad counter intuitive although I've probably massively misunderstood.

Unfortunately an independent report would likely cost more than the items so looks like the retailer can say what they want to get out of refunding me

I'll send them back but not holding out any hope.

stragglebod

UK company?

bris

They are not trying to get out of refunding you, they are simply exercising their rights. Yes they have rights too, and that's to make sure the goods are faulty and not just buyers remorse or user error.


They have stated they will refund you in full including return postage so they are doing what they need to do.

cono1717

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

Goods are deemed to be faulty within the first 6 months but if you are asking for a full refund within 30 days (short term right to reject), my understanding is that doesn't apply.

They do have the right to inspect the goods.

They should cover the cost of the return postage if the goods are faulty which they appear to be offering.

If they disagreed that the goods were faulty you'd need an independent report to demonstrate otherwise.

Isn't the onus on the company to prove it's not faulty in the first 6 months? So the company would need a independent report.

kingblah

cono1717 wrote: »

Isn't the onus on the company to prove it's not faulty in the first 6 months? So the company would need a independent report.

That's what I thought from doing my online research. Which is why i'm surprised I'd need to provide an independent report despite the item going bust after 24 hours of use

bris

cono1717 wrote: »

Isn't the onus on the company to prove it's not faulty in the first 6 months? So the company would need a independent report.

Yes and no. Most will send the goods to the manufacture for their report, this will be acceptable to them so if it's against you the onus is back on you. Sometimes it's obvious like physical damage so that's a no brainer and other time it goes your way where it obviously faulty.

Fosterdog

cono1717 wrote: »

Isn't the onus on the company to prove it's not faulty in the first 6 months? So the company would need a independent report.

Not if you are using your 30 day short term right to reject, under that the onus is on you to prove the fault. After the first 30days and for the remainder of the 6 month the onus is back on the retailer. Because in the first 30 days you can insist on a refund if you reject goods they have the right for you to have to prove the fault. After the first 30 days you can no longer insist on a refund but have to accept their chosen remedy (repair, replacement, or refund) in the first instance, only if that remedy fails or there is a further fault do you then get the right to insist on a refund again.

DoaM

I'm not sure, but if you're merely reporting a fault and not insisting on a refund (i.e. any other remedy would be acceptable - repair or replace) then the short term right is not being invoked thus burden of responsibility still lies with the seller?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DoaM wrote: »

I'm not sure, but if you're merely reporting a fault and not insisting on a refund (i.e. any other remedy would be acceptable - repair or replace) then the short term right is not being invoked thus burden of responsibility still lies with the seller?

That's my understanding as well but if not invoking the short term right to reject the point Bris made still stands that if the retailer disputes the fault and has something to back that up the buyer would then have to prove otherwise.