Being Charged a restocking FEE Help! Paypal Credit

fwor

It does seem to raise a grey area: what do they define as "packaging"? Let's say I buy a Cartier watch which arrives in a brown cardboard box, inside of which is a sealed presentation box, inside of which is a presentation case, inside of which is the watch. How much of the "packaging" can I decide not to return?

[Deleted User]

callum9999 said:

Deleted_User said:

callum9999 said:

msallen said:

gags said:

I will be refusing the refund at 21% reduction.....After reading these posts I was going to ask if I am legally able to get them to return the GFX card to me.....But I may find an emotional reply....rather than legal one

There's only one person whose replies are motivated by emotion on this thread.

Actually, most of them are...

Most seem to be discussing what they deem is "right" as opposed to what the actual law says. For example, as far as I'm aware the law doesn't require you to return the item in its original packaging, yet we have posts talking about how charging over £100 for a missing bit of foam is supposedly reasonable...

The Consumer Contacts Regulations (2013), which I believe is the relevant legislation, states in section 34(9) that the consumer is allowed to "establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" without penalty. I'm not quite sure how you'd be able to do that with a graphics card without opening the box? Unlike what someone else has said, although it may broadly be the intention behind the regulations, it has never said that "you can treat it like you would while in a shop".

I can completely understand why a shop would be irritated by people opening the box then returning, and also completely understand the moral argument in favour of charging for such a thing. However, all are completely irrelevant when discussing legal rights. My interpretation (and as far as I know, the interpretation of every major consumer organisation and the OFT) is that this restocking fee is illegal. I don't doubt for a second that PayPal will also agree if you dispute the purchase.

I'm certainly not a lawyer though (far from it!), so I'm very happy to be corrected if someone here knows more than me.

Why have you chosen to selectively quote the rule? You quote also indicates a misunderstood the wording of the law.

34(9) actually covers the fact that the retailer IS allowed to deduct a cost, as they have done here, if the value of the goods is diminished as a result of the customer handling the goods beyond what is necessary. OP says it was an impulse purchase and they changed their mind. There was no reason for them to open the box in that situation, they could simply have returned it for a full refund. By opening it, taking the card out and doing anything more than plugging it into the PC and checking it worked, they have created a situation where the retailer is allowed to deduct some value from the refund. By returning it without protective foam, the card is potentially damaged and of less value for a sale for the shop, hence 34(9) actually allows them, legally, to reduce the refund.

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.
(10) An amount that may be recovered under paragraph (9)—
(a)may be deducted from the amount to be reimbursed under paragraph (1);
(b)otherwise, must be paid by the consumer to the trader.

Either way, I am sure OP will return in a few weeks and post how they got a full refund and the shop manager apologised, everyone clapped and they were given a free brand new system

Because I'm blind?

Well duh... That's the other side of the same coin. The reason why they've changed their mind is irrelevant - though your explanation is rather confusing given you're saying that taking it out of the box and plugging it in is fine - perhaps I've missed what they supposedly did if it goes further than that?

What complete and utter rubbish. Using that same logic they can refuse the entire refund because it's "potentially" broken. If it IS damaged they can deduct I agree, they can't just because it's "potentially" damaged... Just putting it in the post at all could "potentially" damage it.

I hope they do post the result of this - I don't believe for a second PayPal will decide a £140 charge for a piece of missing foam is legal or reasonable (not least because they're offering to return that too). If you genuinely do, more fool you. 

Your reply is rather confusing but yes, you are talking complete and utter rubbish, I agree. I already quoted the law.

The retailer is allowed to deduct a sum, up to, and including, the full value of the product, if the value is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods.

The retailer is not deducting £140 for the foam itself, they clearly state in the OP original comment that as OP returned the card without the protective foam that they will be deducting the restocking fee. We don't know if the card was damaged in transit as a result of this, for example. As I said, the law allows them to do it.

[Deleted User]

jsmith9 said:

Consumer contracts: distance sales | Business Companion

The law is all in the link above. Note : impulse purchase or not is of course irrelevant. 2. you are allowed to do more than you would in a shop - in the example given you are allowed to take the shirt out of its box, remove the pins etc - you would not be allowed to do that in a shop.

To the OP: you are allowed to open the box, look at the card, and then return it for any reason whatsoever. You don't have to give the reason. You do not need to return the original packaging. They must not charge you a restocking fee unless eg you damaged the card as an example.

The law (The Consumer Contacts Regulations (2013)) has already been quoted in this thread, as in, the actual law, not the view of some random website. The retailer is allowed, by law, to deduct value from the goods if they were returned in such a manner that the value of the goods was diminished by ANY amount as a result of the consumer's handling of the goods, above and beyond checking the part is correct and working. By returning the goods without protective foam that could have caused damage to the card, the retailer is allowed BY LAW, to deduct some value from the refund.

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.
(10) An amount that may be recovered under paragraph (9)—
(a)may be deducted from the amount to be reimbursed under paragraph (1);
(b)otherwise, must be paid by the consumer to the trader.

[Deleted User]

gags said:

What I have done in my OP is to provide too much detail allowing people to deem an emotional response drenched in their own morality.

What I should have posted is
I bought an item from an online shop at a cost of £699
I requested an Return which was accepted.
The online shop received the return with a small bit of the packaging missing.
They want to deduct £146.79 as a restocking fee.
I paid by PayPal credit.
What are my options...

You have already been given the correct legal information, you are choosing to ignore it because you don't like it

The law is perfectly clear:

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.
(10) An amount that may be recovered under paragraph (9)—
(a)may be deducted from the amount to be reimbursed under paragraph (1);
(b)otherwise, must be paid by the consumer to the trader.

You returned the card without the protective cover for the card, the card could well have been damaged in transit and is thus diminished in value as a result, therefore the store has, perfectly legally, deducted a fee. They are not charging you £140 for the piece of foam

[Deleted User]

jsmith9 said:

Consumer contracts: distance sales | Business Companion

The law is all in the link above. Note : impulse purchase or not is of course irrelevant. 2. you are allowed to do more than you would in a shop - in the example given you are allowed to take the shirt out of its box, remove the pins etc - you would not be allowed to do that in a shop.

To the OP: you are allowed to open the box, look at the card, and then return it for any reason whatsoever. You don't have to give the reason. You do not need to return the original packaging. They must not charge you a restocking fee unless eg you damaged the card as an example.

This is false information, the LAW makes it clear the vendor can deduct a sum from the refund if the product value is diminished as a result of handling by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the card was correct and working. Returning it without packaging is arguable either way. Returning it without protective foam that could lead to the card being damaged in transit absolutely would be covered by the law

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.
(10) An amount that may be recovered under paragraph (9)—
(a)may be deducted from the amount to be reimbursed under paragraph (1);
(b)otherwise, must be paid by the consumer to the trader.

thanksbye

I would assume when Citizens Advice refer to packaging they are meaning shipping packaging, ie an Amazon box rather then the Cartier Watch box.

DjangoUnchained

fwor said:

You may well succeed with one of those, but the fact is that in legal terms you agreed to return the product that was supplied to you but you did not.

You returned it incomplete, and I can pretty much guarantee that nothing in law defines how much a piece of foam detracts from the value of the product. So in my opinion your interests would be best served by phoning them and asking what they can do to help you out.

DjangoUnchained

you are completely wrong. I took a dealer to small claims over exactly same situation, computer monitor.  Also its irrelevant for those saying it has to be so shops can sell it again as new , as legally it has to be sold as a second or b-stock no matter if its returned with perfect packaging or not.

Elmer_BeFuddled

If I bought your returned "new" GFX card in a box with seal broke and part of the original packaging missing I would raise a stink and expect at least a third off the price as it is now secondary stock. If you had bought it off me and returned it I'd have deducted 40% to 50% as you have now lost me any chance of selling it as new unused stock.
Bite the bullet. You opened it, put it in your PC, couldn't figure out how to get it working and sent it back.

gags

The conjecture in this thread is laughable...