Return rights without original box

Ragutherottie

Hi I recently bought some gym equipment online I was less than happy with the quality when I built it and tried to return it but they said since I didn't have the original boxes I could not do so.  What are my rights here they basically told me to go sell it second hand.

powerful_Rogue

Ragutherottie said:

Hi I recently bought some gym equipment online I was less than happy with the quality when I built it and tried to return it but they said since I didn't have the original boxes I could not do so.  What are my rights here they basically told me to go sell it second hand.

Where did you buy it from?

When did you buy it?

When did you contact them to try and return it?

bris

Why would you throw out the packaging before you decided whether to keep the equipment or not?

You might still have the right to return it but the deduction because of you throwing away the packaging can be up to 100%. Would you be happy if it was delivered to you without packaging? 

A_Lert

Everything powerful_Rogue said.

If you are returning on the basis of cancelling your order, then the missing packaging can be an issue. If however you are returning on the basis the equipment was not as described, not fit for purpose, or not satisfactory quality, then the missing packaging is irrelevant. Note that "satisfactory quality" is based on what a reasonable person would consider not on your own opinion, and primarily means there should be no outright faults or damage.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

bris said:

Why would you throw out the packaging before you decided whether to keep the equipment or not?

You might still have the right to return it but the deduction because of you throwing away the packaging can be up to 100%. Would you be happy if it was delivered to you without packaging? 

If the retailer is denying the OP their consumer rights and stating they can't return it without a box it's doubtful they will have complied with the requirements to provide the information pertaining to the right to cancel including that a deduction would be imposed for excessive handling. 

Without this they may not impose a deduction. 

Whether the OP would be happy to receive something without a box isn't relevant, the legislation permits the consumer to cancel their contract and return the goods in any condition. Traders who sell online must accept this and should they comply with the requirements so that they can deduct for the diminished value. 

Any consumer who suffers a deduction of 100% for a missing box should consider small claims as there is a very high probability that the item still holds some value and retailers have plenty of avenues to clear less than perfect stock which will likely fly out the door if priced low enough.  

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

bris said:

Why would you throw out the packaging before you decided whether to keep the equipment or not?

You might still have the right to return it but the deduction because of you throwing away the packaging can be up to 100%. Would you be happy if it was delivered to you without packaging? 

If the retailer is denying the OP their consumer rights and stating they can't return it without a box it's doubtful they will have complied with the requirements to provide the information pertaining to the right to cancel including that a deduction would be imposed for excessive handling. 

Without this they may not impose a deduction. 

Whether the OP would be happy to receive something without a box isn't relevant, the legislation permits the consumer to cancel their contract and return the goods in any condition. Traders who sell online must accept this and should they comply with the requirements so that they can deduct for the diminished value. 

Any consumer who suffers a deduction of 100% for a missing box should consider small claims as there is a very high probability that the item still holds some value and retailers have plenty of avenues to clear less than perfect stock which will likely fly out the door if priced low enough.  

I think its a fairly big assumption that the retailer is denying statutory rights but simply assuming the OP is wanting to return the goods under the Consumer Contracts Regulations rather than rejecting the goods as defective under the Consumer Rights Act.

I am not sure under the CCR how exactly excessive handling charges are allowed to be calculated but on a purely fair basis... clearly the thing cannot be sold as new without its box. Assuming the merchant isnt the manufacturer then getting a replacement branded box isnt likely to be straight forward. Certainly disagree that every retailer has plenty of avenues to dispose of sub standard product, not every company wants to sell B grade kit nor has their website setup with a Clearance/Refurb section.  

Whilst the kit may have a residual value its likely that the business would have additional costs materialising that value if they dont already sell b-grade items (eg registering a new account on eBay, putting it up for sale, repeating as no one wants to buy from a new user etc)... does the business just have to absorb those additional costs  of being forced down an avenue they dont want to go or can they be deducted from the residual value?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

bris said:

Why would you throw out the packaging before you decided whether to keep the equipment or not?

You might still have the right to return it but the deduction because of you throwing away the packaging can be up to 100%. Would you be happy if it was delivered to you without packaging? 

If the retailer is denying the OP their consumer rights and stating they can't return it without a box it's doubtful they will have complied with the requirements to provide the information pertaining to the right to cancel including that a deduction would be imposed for excessive handling. 

Without this they may not impose a deduction. 

Whether the OP would be happy to receive something without a box isn't relevant, the legislation permits the consumer to cancel their contract and return the goods in any condition. Traders who sell online must accept this and should they comply with the requirements so that they can deduct for the diminished value. 

Any consumer who suffers a deduction of 100% for a missing box should consider small claims as there is a very high probability that the item still holds some value and retailers have plenty of avenues to clear less than perfect stock which will likely fly out the door if priced low enough.  

I think its a fairly big assumption that the retailer is denying statutory rights but simply assuming the OP is wanting to return the goods under the Consumer Contracts Regulations rather than rejecting the goods as defective under the Consumer Rights Act.

I am not sure under the CCR how exactly excessive handling charges are allowed to be calculated but on a purely fair basis... clearly the thing cannot be sold as new without its box. Assuming the merchant isnt the manufacturer then getting a replacement branded box isnt likely to be straight forward. Certainly disagree that every retailer has plenty of avenues to dispose of sub standard product, not every company wants to sell B grade kit nor has their website setup with a Clearance/Refurb section.  

Whilst the kit may have a residual value its likely that the business would have additional costs materialising that value if they dont already sell b-grade items (eg registering a new account on eBay, putting it up for sale, repeating as no one wants to buy from a new user etc)... does the business just have to absorb those additional costs  of being forced down an avenue they dont want to go or can they be deducted from the residual value?

Regarding denying the OP their rights, regardless of whether they wish to claim under the CRA for the goods not conforming or wish to cancel under the CCRs the presence of the box isn't relevant (unless it's a change of mind outside the minimum timeframes which will depend on when the trader supplies the correct information).

Regarding the part in bold, they either shouldn't sell online or accept the loss as an overhead if they don't wish to resell goods that have been excessively handled. A piece of kit that retails for £100 being sold for £75 only because the outer box is missing should be snapped up. 

Regarding additional costs as with all cases that would go through small claims to be ultimately settled there is typically the require to mitigate the loss so the business would have a duty to ensure any additional costs are limited and appropriate, the court would decide on the balance of probability whether the deduction was fair. 

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Regarding the part in bold, they either shouldn't sell online or accept the loss as an overhead if they don't wish to resell goods that have been excessively handled. A piece of kit that retails for £100 being sold for £75 only because the outer box is missing should be snapped up. 

Regarding additional costs as with all cases that would go through small claims to be ultimately settled there is typically the require to mitigate the loss so the business would have a duty to ensure any additional costs are limited and appropriate, the court would decide on the balance of probability whether the deduction was fair. 

You clearly shop at different places to me, or know a secret that I don't, but the vast majority of online only retailers I use dont have any B grade sales mechanisms. Those that have a physical store too do more commonly but then they also have ex-display to liquidate periodically so its a bigger problem for them.

Obviously don't know the market spot this retailer is pitching at but its common that if you are a retailer and not manufacturer aiming at the upper market that you dont want to sully you brand with sub standard products... hence the stories of companies burning end of season products rather than discounting.

As this is legislation rather than common law what damages can be considered is often prescribed in the legislation. Not sure if your saying its the judges decision means you know the legislation states this or just applying normal common law principles and you dont know what the legislation says.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The legislation says as below, I can only give my understanding of it but I can not see anything that suggests the handling is directly related to the retailers ability to resell the goods depending upon their business model.

Regarding online retailers, Amazon is one of (the?) biggest in the world and they sell through their warehouse ID. On the other end of the scale as a teeny-tiny business in the grand scheme we resell customer returns where applicable at a reduced cost. I'm soft so deductions are only imposed if the customer has taken the proverbial. 

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

(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.

(11) Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.