Item not as described, used, can I return?

Alderbank

Grumpy_chap said:

user1977 said:

Think you're conflating "change of mind" returns with the "not as described" right to return - there's no principle for the latter that you lose the right if you've made more than minimal use of the item. 

"not as described" right to return must still have some requirement to act reasonably (on behalf of the consumer).

Otherwise, the OP could use these trainers for a whole year of trail running and then send them back under the guise that the incorrect model was received.

The law is intended to be on the consumer's side but does attempt to be fair to both parties.
The retailer does not have to give a full refund of the purchase price, he can take into account how long the consumer has had the goods and how saleable they are.
Those trainers after a whole year of trail running would not be worth much.
It might have been sensible when the act was drafted to treat incorrect goods differently from faulty goods, where the fault may not appear for years, but it is what it is.

'Ordinary' people don't like 'reasonably' in legislation because they are never comfortable what it means (lawyers like it though!).

NeedSomeHRadvice

cymruchris said:

Checking they were correct and operational should have been the first thing you did on receipt. As you've run in both of them, they are now 'used'. Had you identified the problems of them being wrong at the time of delivery - you'd have gotten both pairs back very easily.

I've used Under Armour running shoes with bluetooth - and the first thing I did when I got them out of the box was to see if they connected - which they did. Not that it's related to your issue - but why did you go off running in them doing workouts without connecting them to your phone to see if they worked first? (In the case of Under Armour - the pairs that are bluetooth compatible are clearly marked on their boxes - as I've had several pairs of with and without over recent years).

You could try approaching the retailers to see what they offer, but your options might be limited as the product is no longer new. Yes they made errors - but you've used both pairs, so they may accept a return at a reduced value as they can no longer sell them at full price. You could try writing as you've done above to see if they'll offer any goodwill options - to JD to say that they've supplied the wrong item, but you've only spotted it after a couple of runs on a treadmill, and to the ebay seller, you could question as to why you can't connect to bluetooth as per their advert while running on the treadmill, and see what their replies come back as. 

They are under armour and I have just checked the box and no mention of Bluetooth. I read some reviews of the trainers and it said that the BT only activates when you start running which is why I ran in them. They should clean up OK as I only used them twice for a 3km run on a treadmill so sole is a bit dark in places and has has a bit of fluff stuck but a scrub with the alcohol at the gym may fix them. 

The others that I've used on 4 runs have a bright green sole so look a lot more black and will be more difficult to clean up.

born_again said:

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

Hi,

I got sent wrong trainers from one retailer and then mis-described trainers from another retailer, both bought online.

1) Wanted to take up running and ordered a pair of trainers from JDSports. I have ran in the trainers (used on a treadmill - NOT outside) but I have now realised that they have sent the wrong model of trainer and not what I ordered. I've had them for a month and used them maybe 4 times in the gym only.

2) Order another pair of trainers from business seller on ebay (also has an external website). They were described as having Bluetooth technology so that I could track my runs. I have ran in the trainers (used them on the treadmill again - NOT outside) twice and now discovered that these trainers do not have Bluetooth technology so seller mis-described them. I've had them for a couple of weeks.

Am I able to return these for a refund or is the seller likely to say "sorry you've used them" so no return/refund? How should I go about it. 

Thanks

So did you connect these to your phone before starting runs? Which app are they connected to?

Could it be that they only work on actual runs & not on a treadmill, as bluetooth connects to a app to track your run.

No, I thought BT activated when you start running, BUT now I look at the box and there is no BT logo/sign/advert so looks like these never had it. Since I was in the gym I had a run.

Manxman_in_exile said:

But returning a distance sale isn't relevant here is it?  The point is that the two retailers sent the OP items different from those that they ordered, therefore they don't conform to contract under the Consumer Rights Act.  

If the items don't conform to contract because they aren't what the OP ordered, the legislation doesn't say that they can't be returned for a full refund if they've been used.  I don't see why there should be any evidence that they've been used four times on an indoor treadmill anyway.  I've just checked my latest running shoes, which have been used outside 13 times covering 55 miles, and there is no sign of wear yet on the outsole.  If I'd used them just 4 times on an indoor treadmill, like the OP, there wouldn't be a mark on them.

If the traders can't resell the items at full price because they've been "used" then they need to make sure they send out the correct items in future...

(And yes, when I buy anything online I accept that there is probably a relatively high risk that I'm not the first person to open the box and that I'm not the first person to "use" whatever it is)

Under Armour sole will clean up easily but the other ones have a bright sole and it has gone a bit black and looks like it will be difficult to remove signs of use. I have never used either outside, only on treadmill and walking around the gym.

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If you are seeking a remedy when the goods do not conform to the contract (i.e something is wrong) then it doesn’t matter if the goods have been used.

Manxman_in_exile said:

But returning a distance sale isn't relevant here is it?  The point is that the two retailers sent the OP items different from those that they ordered, therefore they don't conform to contract under the Consumer Rights Act.  

If the items don't conform to contract because they aren't what the OP ordered, the legislation doesn't say that they can't be returned for a full refund if they've been used.  I don't see why there should be any evidence that they've been used four times on an indoor treadmill anyway. 

I don't think that I am convinced that the consumer rights are that clear cut.

When receiving something, the reasonable requirement is that the consumer inspects the item on receipt and can only undertake such testing as they could do if they were viewing the item in a shop.   In the case of a pair of trainers, that would be to try them on for size and pad about a few minutes in the living room.

(A similar thing crops up periodically with TV sets and retailers not accepting return once the device has been configured for the user.)

Although, in this case, the OP shouldn't even be getting to the trying them on stage.  The OP (twice, which is very unlucky) ordered trainers A and received trainers B.  In each case, that was the point to return the trainers and the supplier then receives returns that can be retailed.

In both cases the OP has kept the trainers and used them for a month.  I do think it would be evident that trainers have been used four times for exercise - they are no longer new and suitable for retail sale after a few workouts with sweat and wear to the inner lining.

If it truly doesn't matter if the goods have been used, why stop after using the trainers four times on the treadmill?  Why not "only training and competing in one marathon"?

(There was a recent thread where someone received a car, but it was without the wireless phone charging.  Can they use the car for a month before rejecting as not conforming?)

Suppliers do make mistakes and they need to correct the fault when that happens, but it is fair that the consumer returns the items as brand new.  Using the items for a month could be considered as acceptance.  

Remember, for everyone who causes a retailer to lose money, the price goes up for everyone else.

It also seems very coincidental that the OP has ordered two pairs of trainers, received the incorrect product both times, failed to check either time but simply used the trainers for a month before realising they were note the product they asked for.  A cynic might suggest this was someone who decided to take up exercise then got bored with it and now wants a refund.  A bit like the gym memberships taken out in January for a year but never used after the induction session.

I've been a member of the gym for >10 years. Started with weights but got a rotator cuff injury, so switched to runs. I had a crap pair of reebok's and running in them started giving me signs of achiles tendonitis, and joint pains, and I had just started running so didn't want another injury (got one anyway - the achiles tendon got worse and knee and ankle pain - get clicks in ankle and knees now and achiles tendon I was having pain quite for some time - I stupidly ran at 14km/hr!) so this wasn't a scam I was running. 

The first trainer I ordered from JDsports they sent me an upgraded model of the one I ordered and to a non-trainer junkie it's difficult to tell the difference between them. The older model was wider and this feels tight and now I know why - because they sent the wrong ones.

In the second case, I wanted some trainers I could also walk in and these Under Amour fit the bill. The JDSports trainers are proper running trainers so heel is too soft for general walking in. The BT on the Under Amour would have been good but not essential so I may ask the retailer for a discount and keep them.

NeedSomeHRadvice

user1977 said:

Think you're conflating "change of mind" returns with the "not as described" right to return - there's no principle for the latter that you lose the right if you've made more than minimal use of the item. But I'd still expect a bit of a struggle to persuade the retailer that you couldn't have noticed the wrong model as soon as you opened the parcel.

(and off-topic, but I'd really recommend buying running shoes from a specialist shop rather than the big "sportswear" chains or eBayers)

Yeah, I should have probably gone to a running shop as I seem to get shin splints with my old reeboks and these 2 pairs of new trainers too to some extent....Maybe need a running gait analysis. The Under Armour as good for walking so I'll probably keep those - may ask for discount for no Bluetooth - I bet someone will now say that I am returning them becasue of shin splints. 

But I do get SHIN SPLINT, painful and now all my joints click (knees, ankle) after I ran at 14km/h stupidly. 

Manxman_in_exile

If you can show that they've sent you different shoes from the ones you ordered, just send them back and tell them they sent you the wrong shoes.  Don't bother trying to clean them.  That's going to look odd as you don't need to.

The point is, that if they sent you the wrong shoes (ie not the ones that you ordered) then it doesn't matter if you've tried them out a few times within a few weeks of purchasing them.  You can do that.

If they come back to you and say "It looks like you've used these shoes", you can say "Yes.  I initially trusted that you'd sent me the ones I'd ordered.  It was only after a few uses on a treadmill and they didn't feel like I expected them to feel that I checked and realised you'd sent the wrong ones.  That's why I want... (whatever it is you want.) You sent me the wrong ones, it's not a change of mind and it's not just because I don't like them".

Depending how bad your shin splints are, you really need to see a podiatrist if you want a proper gait analysis.  Don't rely on what they tell you in a running shoe shop.  I suffered for years (if not decades) before seeing a podiatrist and getting prescription orthotics (inserts).  Expensive, but turned out to be best value for money I ever spent on running kit. 

If you already know what shoes you want, get them online from a running shop.  I get all my running shoes from Start Fitness and have done for over 15 years.  Start Fitness - Running, Cycling & Sportswear Supplier

Grumpy_chap

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

I ran in them. They should clean up OK as I only used them twice for a 3km run on a treadmill so sole is a bit dark in places and has has a bit of fluff stuck but a scrub with the alcohol at the gym may fix them. 

The others that I've used on 4 runs have a bright green sole so look a lot more black and will be more difficult to clean up.

Since I was in the gym I had a run.

Under Armour sole will clean up easily but the other ones have a bright sole and it has gone a bit black and looks like it will be difficult to remove signs of use. I have never used either outside, only on treadmill and walking around the gym.

I stupidly ran at 14km/hr!) so this wasn't a scam I was running. 

With trainers that have been used for a run more than once each pair at 14 km/h, the cleaning is not really the outside but the need to disinfect any sweat that will be seeped into the fibres of the shoes and also wear to the insoles, which will have already started to take on an impression of your foot profile and weight distribution.

I wish you luck with the running and hope you can progress in an injury-free way.

Manxman_in_exile

If JDSports sent the wrong shoes (which is what the OP says and I have no reason to doubt them*) then the OP doesn't need to make any effort to clean them as any wear and sweat etc is a problem for JDSports, and not a problem for the OP.

It might help the seller remember to send out what the consumer ordered.

*Of course, if the OP is being economical with the truth, more fool them...

Alderbank

Ouch!
I used to be a coach with RunEngland.
I advised new runners to resist the temptation to do too much, too fast. Your lungs improve quickly when you start running so your muscles have more oxygen so much more power and stamina. Alas, your joints and sinews take much longer to develop to cope with that extra power and shin splints is often the result.
I am a believer in the Ten Per Cent rule. Never increase your speed by more than 10% in a week and the same for your distance.
Seems to work.

born_again

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

cymruchris said:

born_again said:

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

Hi,

I got sent wrong trainers from one retailer and then mis-described trainers from another retailer, both bought online.

1) Wanted to take up running and ordered a pair of trainers from JDSports. I have ran in the trainers (used on a treadmill - NOT outside) but I have now realised that they have sent the wrong model of trainer and not what I ordered. I've had them for a month and used them maybe 4 times in the gym only.

2) Order another pair of trainers from business seller on ebay (also has an external website). They were described as having Bluetooth technology so that I could track my runs. I have ran in the trainers (used them on the treadmill again - NOT outside) twice and now discovered that these trainers do not have Bluetooth technology so seller mis-described them. I've had them for a couple of weeks.

Am I able to return these for a refund or is the seller likely to say "sorry you've used them" so no return/refund? How should I go about it. 

Thanks

So did you connect these to your phone before starting runs? Which app are they connected to?

Could it be that they only work on actual runs & not on a treadmill, as bluetooth connects to a app to track your run.

No, I thought BT activated when you start running, BUT now I look at the box and there is no BT logo/sign/advert so looks like these never had it. Since I was in the gym I had a run.

But how do you think bluetooth works? As clearly it needs to be connected to your phone to log any data. So logic says that 1st thing you do is connect to phone.See link below.


https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500009117602-Getting-Started-with-UA-Connected-Footwear#“Setting

Grumpy_chap

Manxman_in_exile said:

If you can show that they've sent you different shoes from the ones you ordered, just send them back and tell them they sent you the wrong shoes.  Don't bother trying to clean them.  That's going to look odd as you don't need to.

The point is, that if they sent you the wrong shoes (ie not the ones that you ordered) then it doesn't matter if you've tried them out a few times within a few weeks of purchasing them.  You can do that.

If they come back to you and say "It looks like you've used these shoes", you can say "Yes.  I initially trusted that you'd sent me the ones I'd ordered.  It was only after a few uses on a treadmill and they didn't feel like I expected them to feel that I checked and realised you'd sent the wrong ones.  That's why I want... (whatever it is you want.) You sent me the wrong ones, it's not a change of mind and it's not just because I don't like them".

Manxman_in_exile said:

If JDSports sent the wrong shoes (which is what the OP says and I have no reason to doubt them*) then the OP doesn't need to make any effort to clean them as any wear and sweat etc is a problem for JDSports, and not a problem for the OP.

It might help the seller remember to send out what the consumer ordered.

*Of course, if the OP is being economical with the truth, more fool them...

You seem to be taking a very extreme view of consumer rights - like it or not, the retailer has rights too.

The OP says they noticed the trainers were wrong but then went on to use them anyway:

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

The first trainer I ordered from JDsports they sent me an upgraded model of the one I ordered and to a non-trainer junkie it's difficult to tell the difference between them. The older model was wider and this feels tight and now I know why - because they sent the wrong ones.

The trainers were identified on the box as different model, perhaps even supposedly "superior".  The fit of the shoe can be tested by trying on and padding about the living room a bit, not necessary to go running 3 km at 14 km/h for proper work-outs four times.

Can you please reference me where anything says that to return under "not as described" you can use the items for a few weeks first before deciding the wrong items were sent?

The following consumer article seems to suggest that return under "not as described" (which different model trainer qualifies) has 30 days to return and it seems quite entirely reasonable that the full refund requires that the product is returned new so it can be resold.
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl

Remember, when consumers return product that cannot be resold, we all pay.

Quite outside of consumer rights, we all have our own standards but I'd find it grossly unhygienic to infuse a pair of trainers with my sweat and body model detritus for a few weeks running proper hard 14 km/h workouts and then think it was appropriate to send them back for sale as new to another unsuspecting victim.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

If you can show that they've sent you different shoes from the ones you ordered, just send them back and tell them they sent you the wrong shoes.  Don't bother trying to clean them.  That's going to look odd as you don't need to.

The point is, that if they sent you the wrong shoes (ie not the ones that you ordered) then it doesn't matter if you've tried them out a few times within a few weeks of purchasing them.  You can do that.

If they come back to you and say "It looks like you've used these shoes", you can say "Yes.  I initially trusted that you'd sent me the ones I'd ordered.  It was only after a few uses on a treadmill and they didn't feel like I expected them to feel that I checked and realised you'd sent the wrong ones.  That's why I want... (whatever it is you want.) You sent me the wrong ones, it's not a change of mind and it's not just because I don't like them".

Manxman_in_exile said:

If JDSports sent the wrong shoes (which is what the OP says and I have no reason to doubt them*) then the OP doesn't need to make any effort to clean them as any wear and sweat etc is a problem for JDSports, and not a problem for the OP.

It might help the seller remember to send out what the consumer ordered.

*Of course, if the OP is being economical with the truth, more fool them...

You seem to be taking a very extreme view of consumer rights - like it or not, the retailer has rights too.

The OP says they noticed the trainers were wrong but then went on to use them anyway:

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

The first trainer I ordered from JDsports they sent me an upgraded model of the one I ordered and to a non-trainer junkie it's difficult to tell the difference between them. The older model was wider and this feels tight and now I know why - because they sent the wrong ones.

Can you please reference me where anything says that to return under "not as described" you can use the items for a few weeks first before deciding the wrong items were sent?

The following consumer article seems to suggest that return under "not as described" (which different model trainer qualifies) has 30 days to return and it seems quite entirely reasonable that the full refund requires that the product is returned new so it can be resold.

Can you show us where the legislation supports your position rather than effectively making up what you feel is reasonable and then asking for it to be proved otherwise? 

Which is only guidance (and not the best at that).

This link covers remedies, and from there the whole Act can be opened, so it should be easy to find and quote the parts that say goods which fail to meet the description must be unused when returned and the consumer’s right to a remedy is linked to the trader’s ability to resell the goods and in a certain condition.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/2/crossheading/what-remedies-are-there-if-statutory-rights-under-a-goods-contract-are-not-met/enacted