Who is responsible for a returned item which was damaged in transit?

Laurels392

We purchased a sink from Victorian Plumbing which we had to return. They specify on their returns policy that it has to be returned in original packaging and that 'We do ask that any goods that are in sealed packaging are clearly visible without the need to open the packaging.' The item was therefore returned via UPS in the original packaging that it was delivered in, arranged by ourselves, and we purchased insurance to cover for damages. The item was damaged in transit so Victorian Plumbing who are refusing a refund and UPS say that the packaging was insufficient and therefore are also refusing a refund through our insurance. Where do we go from here?

Jenni_D

What was the reason for returning? Change of mind?

Do UPS have any packaging guidelines? If yes, do these show that the original packaging was indeed insufficient? If not then you need to request them to prove their claim or pay up, else you'll take this further with the relevant ombudsman.

You may also have a claim against VP as you followed their returns guidance. The answer to the 1st Q above may influence further advice.

Laurels392

Thank you for your reply. Yes UPS do have packaging guidelines which you discover once the problem has arisen and the packaging would not have met these guidelines. However, this would have required packaging the box within another box which seems to be against the requirements of VP. The item was returned as not wanted only. No faults.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If this was change of mind within the cancellation period then:

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

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

(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.

So they should refund within 14 days of getting the goods or evidence of their return. Whether damage in transit comes under excessive handling I don't know but it appears to be the only permitted deduction and is only permissible if they provided you with the information regarding the right to cancel via durable means (which excludes the data on their website). Did they do this? 

If you returned it using the exact same packaging they used to send it there's a strong argument you've acted reasonably. 

Jenni_D

Laurels392 said:

Thank you for your reply. Yes UPS do have packaging guidelines which you discover once the problem has arisen and the packaging would not have met these guidelines. However, this would have required packaging the box within another box which seems to be against the requirements of VP. The item was returned as not wanted only. No faults.

Devil's Advocate ... if the packaging didn't meet UPS standards, then why did they accept the package? Shouldn't they have rejected the collection on seeing the package?  

Laurels392

That was our thoughts re why did they accept the package. We identified what it was and the weight and they collected it in the packaging it was delivered to us in with no comment. They would not however of known the amount of padding within the box which is their argument for insufficient packaging. The package was delivered back to VP within the time frame of their returns and they had agreed to accepting the return before we sent it. I can see VP wouldn't refund as the item was returned not fit for resale,  but it was their guidelines we followed for the packaging of the return. Stuck between the two.

Sandtree

Jenni_D said:
Devil's Advocate ... if the packaging didn't meet UPS standards, then why did they accept the package? Shouldn't they have rejected the collection on seeing the package?  

Never had a parcel collected? How many times have you had to explain to the person what it is or show what sort of padding is being used inside the box?

UPS tell you how to pack the parcel, you are free to ignore it if you dont want to follow their guidelines but the consequence is no insurance. There are only a small number of actual requirements, when sending a parcel recently they said it had to be in a cardboard box but even then they talk of an additional charge rather than refusing it if you sent it in a wooden crate instead. 

pbartlett

Who is responsible? You are I'm afraid. It matters not one whit what Victoria Plumbing require - if you didn't meet the courier's requirements on packing then you are not covered.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

pbartlett said:

Who is responsible? You are I'm afraid. It matters not one whit what Victoria Plumbing require - if you didn't meet the courier's requirements on packing then you are not covered.

Which part of OP’s consumer rights is this based on?

Their website states under the cancellation policy:

All goods, wherever possible, must be returned unused and in their original packaging. We cannot refund goods that have been damaged whilst in your possession. (And another page adds damaged in transit during return to that)

which is not correct, they can not refuse to accept the consumer’s request to cancel the contract nor place a blanket refusal to refund.

There is also no mention of reducing the refund for excessive handling.

I don’t know what the OP got in durable means but going by the companies terms on their site they can’t impose a reduction so the condition of the goods is irrelevant.

Letter before action and small claims if the value warrants it would be the next step if the company refuse to engage.

UPS is a different matter and if the packing doesn’t meet their requirements to qualify for their parcel cover then it doesn’t meet their requirements (unless the parcel was damaged through negligence, such as being run over by a lorry). 

pbartlett

pbartlett said:

Who is responsible? You are I'm afraid. It matters not one whit what Victoria Plumbing require - if you didn't meet the courier's requirements on packing then you are not covered.

Apologies, didn't make it clear in my post that I was referring to UPS - ie you are responsible for not meeting UPS guidelines on packaging  - ie no insurance claim

Regarding VP - are they within their rights to refuse a refund because the sink is damaged on arrival? They could argue it wasn't damaged in transit but you damaged it then tried to send it back. In any case, I would concentrate on getting VP to change their mind rather than on getting compensation from UPS.

Laurels392

An update...big thumbs up and thanks to Victorian Plumbing who have offered a full refund. Great customer service! Thank everyone for your advice and lesson learnt for future returns!