John Lewis Twisting Returns Policy to Avoid Return of Apple Watch?

CoderScribe

Hi folks,
I recently purchased an Apple Watch online at John Lewis for my gf's 30th Birthday, she was incredibly excited but after opening the box and checking the size she found it was too big and heavy and wishes to return it for a the smaller variant. She had taken the outer cellophane off the box in order to open it but everything else is as it was. After speaking with John Lewis over the phone (after being hung up on twice), they claim that they can not accept the return for two reasons based on the wording of their returns policy:

• "Products that have been opened or unsealed (other than where necessary to inspect)"
• "Products that contain your personal data or have been manufacturer-registered"

As far as I'm aware, for the first point, it's a legal right under the distance selling regulations (as it is also to not have to return products in original packaging) and was indeed necessary to inspect the product as it was purchased online without seeing it in-person and so it was needed to inspect it to determine that it had arrived intact and was a suitable size, which their terms also allude to but I'm told otherwise by the phone representative.

For the second point, I've long understood this to be due to data protection and locking a product into a service preventing resale, this is why you have to factory reset devices before you return them and not register them to any service. In this case we've never turned the watch on and it's not registered to any provider, however again, the phone representative is claiming that they have no way of proving that we didn't store personal data on the watch and that a factory reset isn't sufficient (even though I thought Apple low-level formatted during factory resets) and that they have no way to ensure that personal data doesn't remain on the watch.

This to me sounds bonkers, firstly, the term says nothing about devices that "could hold personal data" or "are capable of holding personal data", they specifically say "that contain your" AKA "my" personal data, which obviously isn't on there and there was no special advise or label around the cellophane stating that it could void my right to return. Why should it be my responsibility that they can't verify in order to honour this term, especially when I've not been informed of such a limitation? It's worth noting that Apple happily accept returns of watches that have been removed from their boxes and so clearly Apple, as a reseller, at least, has mechanisms to ensure a full erasure and confirm the presence of personal data or not.

To add fuel to the fire, when I quoted distance selling regulations I was told that the Apple Watch is excluded because it has software on it, which seems like a gross misinterpretation of the intent of this exclusion which is to prevent to consumption of one-time media and copying of software, especially given that it's not possible to do so on an Apple watch and that the software is intrinsically linked to the watch hardware, that's like saying you can't return a TV because it has Android running on it or a piece of software to process the contents of an image.

It just sounds like I've been thrown the world's most ridiculous list of excuses and misinterpretation of T&Cs. As far as I'm concerned I've clearly honoured my end of the terms:

• "Products that have been opened or unsealed (other than where necessary to inspect)"
•   Yes it was necessary and a legal right to inspect, the bare minimum was done to do so and all other packaging is in tact, as new.
• "Products that contain your personal data or have been manufacturer-registered"
•    The product does not contain my personal data and it has not been manufacturer-registered.

Am I bonkers or am I being taken for a ride? What can I do to escalate this?

Many thanks

neilmcl

OK, for starters the DSRs have long been replaced by the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2015 (CCRs) so you bit about not having to return products in original packaging is just plain incorrect, in fact it was wrong as far as the old DSRs are concerned.

You are entitled to inspect the watch as you would be able to do in a shop so speak to them again and state that you haven't done anything other than "what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" and you haven't put in any personal data or registered it with the manufacturer, and even if you had there's nothing in the regulations that would exclude you from cancelling the contract because of this.

DiddyDavies

neilmcl said:

and you haven't put in any personal data or registered it with the manufacturer, and even if you had there's nothing in the regulations that would exclude you from cancelling the contract because of this.

It won't stop you from cancelling but it could well mean that the retailer is allowed to reduce the refund because of it.
As you have already mentioned, you are only allowed to inspect the goods to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods and this handling should be no more than would be allowed in a shop and if it is, the retailer can reduce the refund to cover any reduced value due to the excessive handling.
Inputting personal data or registering the item wouldn't generally be allowed in a shop so I don't see why it would be allowed in a distance sale and although inputting data might not reduce the value, registering the item might, especially if any guarantee runs from the date of registration.

Spank

But the op states that all the did was take it out the box, remove the cellophane and try the watch on. No mention of even switching it on.

DiddyDavies

Spank said:

But the op states that all the did was take it out the box, remove the cellophane and try the watch on. No mention of even switching it on.

I know but I was responding to the comment that stated that even if it had personal data entered and had been registered, it could still be returned.

hb2

DiddyDavies said:

Touchstones2 said:

How do we know. I think highly likely that they did turn it on. Then she slapped the watch on her wrist,  wobbled it about. Did a little cough, touched her nose then touched the wristband,then looked at the back then probley turned it on and then she tried the weight thing fat women do on a scale where she held the watch in her hand and bounced it to check weight.

Then she left it in box's and then repeated the process again in front of him. She seem high maintenance .

Do you want to repost that in English?

They would still be a troll, even if they did . . .

Jumblebumble

CoderScribe said:

For the second point, I've long understood this to be due to data protection and locking a product into a service preventing resale, this is why you have to factory reset devices before you return them and not register them to any service. In this case we've never turned the watch on and it's not registered to any provider, however again, the phone representative is claiming that they have no way of proving that we didn't store personal data on the watch and that a factory reset isn't sufficient (even though I thought Apple low-level formatted during factory resets) and that they have no way to ensure that personal data doesn't remain on the watch.

Ask the phone representative to prove that you did store personal data and tell them you will sign a disclaimer and give permission for any personal data to be passed on if they can find it.
As for factory resets there are plenty of criminals who are locked up because they believed what you do but have been shown the error of their ways by police forensic specialists.