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

Bradden

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

nedlammas

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

DanDare999

nedlammas said:

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

You probably when beyond inspection when you erected it. 

shiraz99

DanDare999 said:

nedlammas said:

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

You probably when beyond inspection when you erected it. 

I'd disagree. How can you fully "establish the nature, characteristics and functioning" of tent without performing it's main purpose and erecting it.

DanDare999

shiraz99 said:

DanDare999 said:

nedlammas said:

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

You probably when beyond inspection when you erected it. 

I'd disagree. How can you fully "establish the nature, characteristics and functioning" of tent without performing it's main purpose and erecting it.

It's a tent, how would you expect it to function? Part of the problem was it's too small. The OP didn't need to erect it to establish that. 

nedlammas

DanDare999 said:

shiraz99 said:

DanDare999 said:

nedlammas said:

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

You probably when beyond inspection when you erected it. 

I'd disagree. How can you fully "establish the nature, characteristics and functioning" of tent without performing it's main purpose and erecting it.

It's a tent, how would you expect it to function? Part of the problem was it's too small. The OP didn't need to erect it to establish that. 

I'm supposed to tell that by looking at as a pile of plastic sheeting & poles?

shiraz99

DanDare999 said:

shiraz99 said:

DanDare999 said:

nedlammas said:

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

You probably when beyond inspection when you erected it. 

I'd disagree. How can you fully "establish the nature, characteristics and functioning" of tent without performing it's main purpose and erecting it.

It's a tent, how would you expect it to function? Part of the problem was it's too small. The OP didn't need to erect it to establish that. 

Of course they did. You would only get a sense of the size once it was erected and you got in it.

DanDare999

nedlammas said:

DanDare999 said:

shiraz99 said:

DanDare999 said:

nedlammas said:

Bradden said:

Whilst I agree that legally the company hasn't complied with the legislation and have therefore diminished their rights.. and improved yours I do kinda feel for them. They do seem a reasonable company who are upfront about their returns policy.
They cover customers who would like to erect a tent a home for test purposes and ask you to :

• In taking part in this trial you agree to use a suitable footprint groundsheet protector purchased from us to prevent your tent or awning becoming unnecessarily stained or soiled (or have prior written agreement to use another suitable groundsheet not purchased from us).

Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can see your point, and would agree with you if I had erected the tent for 'test purposes' but that is not what I think I did. I think I removed the tent from it's packaging for inspection purposes only, and it was not used in any way whatsoever.

You probably when beyond inspection when you erected it. 

I'd disagree. How can you fully "establish the nature, characteristics and functioning" of tent without performing it's main purpose and erecting it.

It's a tent, how would you expect it to function? Part of the problem was it's too small. The OP didn't need to erect it to establish that. 

I'm supposed to tell that by looking at as a pile of plastic sheeting & poles?

The size? I'd suggest it's listed on the website you bought it from. 

biscan25

We bought a tent from Decathlon a couple of months ago. I bought from the shop as I had a physical voucher from a previous mishap, but had found the tent online. The store didn't have it up as a display model, so the assistant said to go grab a coffee and they'd put one up for me! A+ customer service, but I probably would've bought a different tent if I could have seen it erected.

So I'd say erecting the tent is reasonable for inspection, as people would normally be able to see the tent up in the shop.

mr_stripey

you don't need to erect a tent to know how big it is - the dimensions on the packaging/website will tell you this