Refund denied for a returned tent as deemed 'used' by removing it from box

Ergates

DanDare999 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

As highlighted by P_F, if the company didn't provide the required information then the handling is a moot point as the company can't reduce the refund for diminished value.

Guidance below could probably cause more debate than getting to a definitive answer but personally opening and pitching a tent is similar to trying on a T-shirt, assuming it's done indoors, as you could argue you'd expect to see display tents in camping stores and pitching one at home is the same as interacting with a display model. 

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales#Effectsofwithdrawalorcancellation

This [diminished value/excessive handling] is likely to be a controversial area of the Regulations for both consumers and traders and will ultimately be a matter for a court to decide. However, the following examples will attempt to illustrate this concept:

• a consumer returns a shirt that comes in a presentation box, which they had opened and removed all the pins and packaging to try it on. It is reasonable to expect a consumer to remove packaging to try on or examine an item, so you should make no deduction for this
• a consumer returns a shirt, which you can see has clearly been worn. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value
• a consumer returns flat pack furniture, which they have clearly attempted to assemble by opening packs of screws and trying to put parts together. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value

You are not able to make any deduction for diminishing the value of the goods if you have not provided consumers with the information about their right to cancel (information item 'l' above).

Pollycat said:

But will those tents be sold at full price or marked down as 'display models'?

The legislation doesn't really note the trader's ability to resell the goods or whether they will achieve a certain price.

You can certainly argue a tent that's been opened and pitched might have had it's value diminished but the point to focus on is whether the handling was excessive

So if they don't provide cancellation details, can you buy the tent, try it out for a week on holiday and then return it?

Essentially, yes.  The lost of the right to apply a reduction is intended as a penalty to encourage/force retailers to supply the information that they are meant to supply.  If they comply with their obligations they'll have no problems.   It's not even hard to do so - they'll almost always be sending you an email anyway, all they have to do is automatically append a statement about the customers rights in there, the government website even gives them the statement they can just paste in.

For businesses who, for some reason, haven't bothered to do so (they've had 9 years!) - then they get the occasional kick in the teeth.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

DanDare999 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

As highlighted by P_F, if the company didn't provide the required information then the handling is a moot point as the company can't reduce the refund for diminished value.

Guidance below could probably cause more debate than getting to a definitive answer but personally opening and pitching a tent is similar to trying on a T-shirt, assuming it's done indoors, as you could argue you'd expect to see display tents in camping stores and pitching one at home is the same as interacting with a display model. 

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales#Effectsofwithdrawalorcancellation

This [diminished value/excessive handling] is likely to be a controversial area of the Regulations for both consumers and traders and will ultimately be a matter for a court to decide. However, the following examples will attempt to illustrate this concept:

• a consumer returns a shirt that comes in a presentation box, which they had opened and removed all the pins and packaging to try it on. It is reasonable to expect a consumer to remove packaging to try on or examine an item, so you should make no deduction for this
• a consumer returns a shirt, which you can see has clearly been worn. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value
• a consumer returns flat pack furniture, which they have clearly attempted to assemble by opening packs of screws and trying to put parts together. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value

You are not able to make any deduction for diminishing the value of the goods if you have not provided consumers with the information about their right to cancel (information item 'l' above).

Pollycat said:

But will those tents be sold at full price or marked down as 'display models'?

The legislation doesn't really note the trader's ability to resell the goods or whether they will achieve a certain price.

You can certainly argue a tent that's been opened and pitched might have had it's value diminished but the point to focus on is whether the handling was excessive

So if they don't provide cancellation details, can you buy the tent, try it out for a week on holiday and then return it?

Essentially, yes.  The lost of the right to apply a reduction is intended as a penalty to encourage/force retailers to supply the information that they are meant to supply.  If they comply with their obligations they'll have no problems.   It's not even hard to do so - they'll almost always be sending you an email anyway, all they have to do is automatically append a statement about the customers rights in there, the government website even gives them the statement they can just paste in.

For businesses who, for some reason, haven't bothered to do so (they've had 9 years!) - then they get the occasional kick in the teeth.

I think some of the big retailers, like those with a big famous catalogue, do it deliberately as few know their rights and no one seems to tackle them on the matter. 

There was a push about terms under the old DSR regs and big companies being non-compliant many years back but currently no one cares. Perhaps the punishment was intended to cover lack of enforcement which would work if the average person knew about their rights.  

shiraz99

Pollycat said:

shiraz99 said:

Pollycat said:

shiraz99 said:

VohnnyJegas said:

shiraz99 said:

macman said:

But it's clearly opened and used as defined by the t and c's. What consumer legislation are you relying on?
Look at this the other way around. Would you be happy if they had sold you a tent, described as new, and at full price, that had the packaging opened and had been assembled? They also have no way of knowing if it's been used: for all they know you used it for a week's holiday and then returned it. So they cannot honestly resell it as new.
I doubt that S75 or chargeback would be successful here, but you have nothing to lose by trying.

And??

It's an online purchase and under the terms of the CCRs the OP is entitled to open the packaging to do "what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods,", also who said anything about being "used", it was put up once that's all.

That doesn't include pitching it up.

Who says? If pitching the tent is the only way to establish the "nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" , which for a tent I'd say that's exactly what it does, then it's allowed. You go into most camping shops and there'll be tents already set up and displayed, this is no different.

But will those tents be sold at full price or marked down as 'display models'?

That has absolutely no relevance.

I thought it did.
Hence why I asked the question.

And I answered it 😉

shiraz99

macman said:

Ergates said:

Pollycat said:

shiraz99 said:

VohnnyJegas said:

shiraz99 said:

macman said:

But it's clearly opened and used as defined by the t and c's. What consumer legislation are you relying on?
Look at this the other way around. Would you be happy if they had sold you a tent, described as new, and at full price, that had the packaging opened and had been assembled? They also have no way of knowing if it's been used: for all they know you used it for a week's holiday and then returned it. So they cannot honestly resell it as new.
I doubt that S75 or chargeback would be successful here, but you have nothing to lose by trying.

And??

It's an online purchase and under the terms of the CCRs the OP is entitled to open the packaging to do "what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods,", also who said anything about being "used", it was put up once that's all.

That doesn't include pitching it up.

Who says? If pitching the tent is the only way to establish the "nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" , which for a tent I'd say that's exactly what it does, then it's allowed. You go into most camping shops and there'll be tents already set up and displayed, this is no different.

But will those tents be sold at full price or marked down as 'display models'?

It's the exact same principle as clothes.   If you buy a shirt from an online retailer,  it is entirely reasonable and allowed to take it out of the packaging and try it on.  If it doesn't fit and you return it, then the retailer will probably sell it as new.

I don't think it is the same principle. Clothing can only be assessed for fit by trying it on, albeit briefly.
The OP bought a tent that was entirely the wrong size. You don't need to 'try a tent on', or even assemble it, to gauge it's size. The dimensions were presumably stated on the retailer's site, and probably on the packaging upon delivery, but he failed to check that they matched his requirements, which were apparently the same as the older tent he was replacing. He ordered the wrong model, but unpacked it and assembled it. It's both opened and used. however briefly for.

Establishing the nature, characteristics and functioning of goods is more than just checking it for size. The size issue may have been the reason behind the rejection but that still doesn't impact the ability to do the other things.

Manxman_in_exile

Ergates said:

DanDare999 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

As highlighted by P_F, if the company didn't provide the required information then the handling is a moot point as the company can't reduce the refund for diminished value.

Guidance below could probably cause more debate than getting to a definitive answer but personally opening and pitching a tent is similar to trying on a T-shirt, assuming it's done indoors, as you could argue you'd expect to see display tents in camping stores and pitching one at home is the same as interacting with a display model. 

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales#Effectsofwithdrawalorcancellation

This [diminished value/excessive handling] is likely to be a controversial area of the Regulations for both consumers and traders and will ultimately be a matter for a court to decide. However, the following examples will attempt to illustrate this concept:

• a consumer returns a shirt that comes in a presentation box, which they had opened and removed all the pins and packaging to try it on. It is reasonable to expect a consumer to remove packaging to try on or examine an item, so you should make no deduction for this
• a consumer returns a shirt, which you can see has clearly been worn. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value
• a consumer returns flat pack furniture, which they have clearly attempted to assemble by opening packs of screws and trying to put parts together. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value

You are not able to make any deduction for diminishing the value of the goods if you have not provided consumers with the information about their right to cancel (information item 'l' above).

Pollycat said:

But will those tents be sold at full price or marked down as 'display models'?

The legislation doesn't really note the trader's ability to resell the goods or whether they will achieve a certain price.

You can certainly argue a tent that's been opened and pitched might have had it's value diminished but the point to focus on is whether the handling was excessive

So if they don't provide cancellation details, can you buy the tent, try it out for a week on holiday and then return it?

Essentially, yes.  The lost of the right to apply a reduction is intended as a penalty to encourage/force retailers to supply the information that they are meant to supply.  If they comply with their obligations they'll have no problems.   It's not even hard to do so - they'll almost always be sending you an email anyway, all they have to do is automatically append a statement about the customers rights in there, the government website even gives them the statement they can just paste in.

For businesses who, for some reason, haven't bothered to do so (they've had 9 years!) - then they get the occasional kick in the teeth.

Agreed.  That is the obvious intention of the legislation, but some people can't get their heads around that because it just doesn't seem "right" to them.  (Or rather they don't understand it).

As you say, it's not even a particularly onerous condition for businesses to comply with.

And as for everybody who says "It's no longer unused" or "would you be happy to receive this after it's been used", I'm afraid the answer is that that question is irrelevant.  If the retailer does not provide to the consumer the information required by the statute, the consumer is entitled to cancel and to receive a full refund.  Whether the retailer subsequently tries to pass the tent off to other purchasers as unused, is not an issue that need concern this OP.

If you buy a lot of stuff over the internet, the obvious advice is to buy from retailers who comply with the law, not those who don't...

Hint - if their T&Cs etc don't explain your stautory right to cancel distance and off-premises contracts as required by the legislation, think twice before buying from them!   

Exodi

Manxman_in_exile said:

Hint - if their T&Cs etc don't explain your stautory right to cancel distance and off-premises contracts as required by the legislation, think twice before buying from them!   

Because if they don't, defintely buy from them, as you can use the goods for as long as you like and return for a full refund when you're done?

Ergates

Exodi said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Hint - if their T&Cs etc don't explain your stautory right to cancel distance and off-premises contracts as required by the legislation, think twice before buying from them!   

Because if they don't, defintely buy from them, as you can use the goods for as long as you like and return for a full refund when you're done?

In theory - in practice that would probably involve going to court which would be a pain in the bum most of the time.

Manxman_in_exile

Exodi said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Hint - if their T&Cs etc don't explain your stautory right to cancel distance and off-premises contracts as required by the legislation, think twice before buying from them!   

Because if they don't, defintely buy from them, as you can use the goods for as long as you like and return for a full refund when you're done?

No.  

That's because that point is addressed at those people who moan about the possibility of unwittingly buying items that have already been "used" or have been "subject to excessive handling" by a previous customer. 

My advice is aimed at them, and is that if you are worried about that possibility then definitely steer clear of internet sellers who do not comply with their legal obligations to provide certain information to consumers. 

If they can't be trusted to do something which isn't particularly difficult and wouldn't cost them anything, then they probably can't be trusted generally, and if somebody does buy something from a retailer like that, they run the risk that it's quite possible that it's been excessively handled over an extended period by a previous customer before the retailer has been forced to accept it back.

macman

shiraz99 said:

macman said:

Ergates said:

Pollycat said:

shiraz99 said:

VohnnyJegas said:

shiraz99 said:

macman said:

But it's clearly opened and used as defined by the t and c's. What consumer legislation are you relying on?
Look at this the other way around. Would you be happy if they had sold you a tent, described as new, and at full price, that had the packaging opened and had been assembled? They also have no way of knowing if it's been used: for all they know you used it for a week's holiday and then returned it. So they cannot honestly resell it as new.
I doubt that S75 or chargeback would be successful here, but you have nothing to lose by trying.

And??

It's an online purchase and under the terms of the CCRs the OP is entitled to open the packaging to do "what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods,", also who said anything about being "used", it was put up once that's all.

That doesn't include pitching it up.

Who says? If pitching the tent is the only way to establish the "nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" , which for a tent I'd say that's exactly what it does, then it's allowed. You go into most camping shops and there'll be tents already set up and displayed, this is no different.

But will those tents be sold at full price or marked down as 'display models'?

It's the exact same principle as clothes.   If you buy a shirt from an online retailer,  it is entirely reasonable and allowed to take it out of the packaging and try it on.  If it doesn't fit and you return it, then the retailer will probably sell it as new.

I don't think it is the same principle. Clothing can only be assessed for fit by trying it on, albeit briefly.
The OP bought a tent that was entirely the wrong size. You don't need to 'try a tent on', or even assemble it, to gauge it's size. The dimensions were presumably stated on the retailer's site, and probably on the packaging upon delivery, but he failed to check that they matched his requirements, which were apparently the same as the older tent he was replacing. He ordered the wrong model, but unpacked it and assembled it. It's both opened and used. however briefly for.

Establishing the nature, characteristics and functioning of goods is more than just checking it for size. The size issue may have been the reason behind the rejection but that still doesn't impact the ability to do the other things.

The functioning of the item is a separate matter. If he'd unpacked it, assembled it and found that the zip was broken, then it would be returned as faulty (non-functioning). No argument. But this is different: the tent functions perfectly well. If the OP's legs stick out the door because it's too small, that's because he ordered the wrong size. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The reason for the return doesn't really come in to play as the consumer isn't obligated to provide one