Company say the dress I returned has a stain on it

phebe3

Hi, I bought a dress on line from a company I haven't heard of before, through a third party....Silk Fred.  I returned it as it was a little tight and I didn't like the material.  I had it on for all of five minutes, photoed myself in it to send to daughter to get advice, then put it back in the packaging and returned it the next day.  The company are refusing to refund me, and they sent a photo of the stain on said dress and it definitely didn't have it on when I sent it back.  I presume it's their word against mine and I have to accept the stained dress with no refund (they are sending it back).  It's really put me off shopping on line, and yet I have done it for many years with no problems

lisyloo

Does the photo(s) you took prove there wasn’t a stain when you had it on?

how expensive was the dress? (Related to whether pursuing it is worth it)

phebe3

Yes they do, but then they could say I did it after I took a photo.  Tbh the dress, thankfully, wasn't super expensive, but I just feel my trust in on line shopping has been compromised, and I don't like to be thought of as dishonest...I would NEVER return an item if I'd worn it or damaged it.

lisyloo

no you don’t have to accept their stance.
you can first put in a formal complaint to their customer services sending them the photo and stating the damage did not occur whilst in your possession and might have occurred at their end?

how did you pay?
paypal? Credit card? Debit card?

yes it’s your word against theirs but you do have some proof on your side albeit at a point in time

Ath_Wat

All the photo would prove is that it didn't have the stain on it when the OP received it.  

Money_Grabber13579

Ath_Wat said:

All the photo would prove is that it didn't have the stain on it when the OP received it.  

But likewise, their photo doesn’t prove that the stain was there when it left the OP’s possession.

lisyloo

Ath_Wat said:

All the photo would prove is that it didn't have the stain on it when the OP received it.  

The photo proves the stain wasn’t there after putting it on.
its doesn’t prove it didn’t happen whilst taking it off or storing it or putting it in the packaging.

BUT it’s more proof that the other side have And I think it’s add some credibility to the argument.
the cases I’ve won are where I’ve had a detailed story with dates, times, names etc.

when it comes to civil cases decisions are made on the basis of probability.
Is it more likely the OP stained a dress which is worth money to them or more likely the company did in their factory when its arguably much less important to them in terms of value and handled by numerous employees.

yes the photo has limited value but if I had it I would not omit it from my arguments.

the only other Question is does the stain indicate anything?
i mean if it looks like the glue that was used to seal the packaging or it looks like ketchup then it might reveal the sauce (source)  -sorry pun intended.

you can appeal to customer services without forensic proof - I often find being charming and appealing on the basis of disappointment as a loyal customer gives them something to win (future business) and works better as an initial approach than going in all guns blazing.
you can also dispute with card/payment companies without forensic proof and they will make a decision.
sometimes companies do not have the desire or admin capability to deal with chargeback appeals within time limits or it simply costs them more to appeal than give in, so you can sometimes “win” via that route. Companies are not emotionally invested and will make a decision based on costs, I have won several times because of  lack of will/time/capability on the part of the merchant to appeal.
amex and PayPal are anecdotally known to side with customers and Amex have a short appeal timescale (payment method matters here).

so it’s not correct to say that lack of forensic proof means there is no route to resolution.

long winded but applies generally.