Jessops - Worried what they have sent me has been opened and used before

cymruchris

If it's the large size - Jessop's sells those at £450 - they can be had for less at other reputable retailers (unless you bought on a promo) - I'd be inclined to send it back and buy elsewhere if you're not happy. However, if when removing it from the (opened) box the unit was 'new' and everything worked as it should I'd not worry about it and get on with using it. 

MattMattMattUK

tightauldgit said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Is this the problem of the consumer rights we do have?
A consumer can buy an item online and has 14 days from receipt to return the item for any (or no) reason.
Is that returned item then meant to be scrapped?  Or sold as second-hand?  Who would pay those costs?
OR, someone else receives the same item again.
Consumer rights also need to work for the retail business.

maxwellmember said:

I purchased a Wacom Intuis Pro pen tablet from Jessops back in February. After I paid for it, I was then informed it was out of stock. They claim this is clearly stated on the website. I dispute that. 

In the end, it took Jessops six weeks to send me the product. In that time, it was virtually impossible to get a response from them. This was nerve-wracking as they had my money and I had no idea when, or even if, I would get the product. I was keen to point out that I needed it for my work and asked if they would offer compensation for this. They said they don't ever offer compensation.

I queried why they took my money when it was out of stock. I've only ever experienced businesses allowing you to sign up for an email to alert you when it is back in. Their response about needing to have me in the queue holds no credence. So, I can only conclude they take customers' money and invest it for profit. If that is the case, surely that is not legal - it's certainly not moral or acceptable. The other issue with this is I couldn't go and get the product elsewhere. As I said, I needed it for work but this prevented me from doing so, adversely affecting my business.

When the product finally arrived I immediately noticed, when I opened the box, that it had been opened before. I can only conclude that is it second hand or reconditioned - but I have paid for a brand new product. Bizarrely it wasn't even sent from Jessops but from another company called Northamber. I took photos of the packaging and immediately sent them to both Jessops and Northamber. I also contacted Wacom with the serial number to find out when it was made and what has happened to it. Wacom confirmed that my item was manufactured in 2019 which is four years ago.

Jessops and Northamber told me the delay in my delivery was due to the supply shortage but if that was the case, surely I wouldn't receive a product made four years ago - they would be waiting for one to roll off the production line now. Also, neither has been able to tell me where they got it from.

I now have a product I waited six weeks for that I still can't use until I am clear on its provenance. 

To my mind, something doesn't stack up here - I feel like there are some dodgy business practices going on at Jessops. 1. I believe they are taking customers' money and using it to invest elsewhere. 2. I am worried about the products they are selling - it appears they are selling used/reconditioned or faulty products as new.

I am at my wit's end with this and need answers. If anyone has any advice on what I can do or if there is an institution that I can ask to look into their business practices, I'd be most grateful


Thank you

I work on the basis that if I buy anything online then there's a reasonable liklihood that it's already been returned by someone else after opening it, trying it on or otherwise trying it out etc.

That's the quid pro quo of having consumer protection legislation that allows consumers to do precisely that.

(Obviously returns are not scrapped or sold as used or second-hand unless their condition absolutely requires it... )

 I believe that sadly a lot of stuff that gets returned does just get binned (or shipped off to become someone else's problem) from a lot of big retailers. It's part of the problem 

Most is sold as job lots to other companies, it often ends up on market stalls, online auction sites etc. 

Manxman_in_exile

eskbanker said:

powerful_Rogue said:

eskbanker said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Is this the problem of the consumer rights we do have?
A consumer can buy an item online and has 14 days from receipt to return the item for any (or no) reason.
Is that returned item then meant to be scrapped?  Or sold as second-hand?  Who would pay those costs?
OR, someone else receives the same item again.
Consumer rights also need to work for the retail business.

Retailers choosing to offer their products online should be doing so in the full knowledge of their legal obligations so this shouldn't be news to them, but my understanding remains that the right to return (when not faulty, etc) is effectively in lieu of being able to inspect the product in a shop, and any handling, etc, should be commensurate with what can reasonably be done in that environment.

Hence my earlier question about whether the product has actually been used or if its packaging had simply been opened, as IMHO the former would then be second hand but the latter wouldn't....

Edit: replied before navigating to page 2, so most of that has been covered since!

What do you classed as used though? As you can purchase online and inspect the characteristics etc which is not classed as excessive in most cases so no deduction can be made - is this classed as new or used if resold?

I don't know if there's actually a definition anywhere but in the context of something like a tablet, if it's been powered up and gone through initial software installation/configuration, etc (as opposed to, say, lifting the device out of the packaging to ascertain its weight), then I'd consider that to be used, ...

My own view is that so long as the person who returned the tablet only "used" it so far as was "necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" and does not go "beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop", then the tablet has not been "used" and is still new.

Again it's only my personal view, but with a tablet, a laptop or any other similar device, I can't see how its "nature, characteristics and functioning" can be determined without at least switching it on and trying out the keyboard and checking the sound and screen quality.  I don't think I've ever been in a shop where they wouldn't let you see a display model that was turned on, or not allow you to check the sound and screen quality.

And if to do that that requires initial software installation/configuration, then I'd argue that the law appears to permit it.

(While I understand and approve of the general spirit behind the "distance" right to cancel, I don't think it's expressed particularly well or particularly precisely in the Regs.  I assume the English wording of the Regs is simply pretty much a direct translation of whatever was the wording of what I presume was originally a EU Directive.  I suspect if it had been drafted by an English Parliamentary draftsman then it might have been more precise - if ten times longer...)

eskbanker

Yes, point taken, but I think there's actually a difference between what's legally permitted prior to returning goods under the CCRs and determining whether something has been used (as far as another buyer would be concerned), even though a Venn diagram of those two conditions will undoubtedly overlap a fair bit....

Manxman_in_exile

eskbanker said:

Yes, point taken, but I think there's actually a difference between what's legally permitted prior to returning goods under the CCRs and determining whether something has been used (as far as another buyer would be concerned), even though a Venn diagram of those two conditions will undoubtedly overlap a fair bit....

Fair enough, but I would argue that anything that has been legitimately returned under the CCRs is, by implied definition, unused and can be sold as "new".

Whether or not a subsequent buyer would consider it used is irrelevant.  As I said earlier, it's the quid pro quo buyers must accept if they want the convenience and flexibility of buying online.

And I'd argue the same applies to any item returned under a seller's own returns policy if that policy says the item must be "unused".

eskbanker

Manxman_in_exile said:

eskbanker said:

Yes, point taken, but I think there's actually a difference between what's legally permitted prior to returning goods under the CCRs and determining whether something has been used (as far as another buyer would be concerned), even though a Venn diagram of those two conditions will undoubtedly overlap a fair bit....

Fair enough, but I would argue that anything that has been legitimately returned under the CCRs is, by implied definition, unused and can be sold as "new".

Whether or not a subsequent buyer would consider it used is irrelevant.  As I said earlier, it's the quid pro quo buyers must accept if they want the convenience and flexibility of buying online.

And I'd argue the same applies to any item returned under a seller's own returns policy if that policy says the item must be "unused".

I'm still unconvinced that the conditions governing the second sale of an item can be tied to the 'returnability' of a previous sale - from a buyer's perspective (such as OP) I'm not aware of anything that allows online retailers to sell items as new if they've actually been used and am not particularly interested in their upstream processes around CCR returns!  What authoritative source supports the suggestion that there's some sort of quid pro quo that requires online buyers to accept lower product quality standards than bricks and mortar buyers?

sheramber

How many clothes items have been tried on and returned- both online and in some stores?  

Do you consider all these items second hand?

NBLondon

I’d be more concerned about:

maxwellmember said:

I also contacted Wacom with the serial number to find out when it was made and what has happened to it. Wacom confirmed that my item was manufactured in 2019 which is four years ago.

Jessops and Northamber told me the delay in my delivery was due to the supply shortage but if that was the case, surely I wouldn't receive a product made four years ago - they would be waiting for one to roll off the production line now. Also, neither has been able to tell me where they got it from

That really does suggest the item is used/reconditioned. Would it even be the same model/spec if it’s 4 years old? Maybe someone opened it and returned 4 years ago so it hasn’t been “used” but it then it got forgotten until Northamber found an old one at the back of the shelf somewhere. Unlikely…

As for

maxwellmember said:

After I paid for it, I was then informed it was out of stock. They claim this is clearly stated on the website. I dispute that. 

That seems to me to be shady practice – anywhere else you see it as out of stock before you place an order and provide payment details.

NBLondon

MattMattMattUK said:

tightauldgit said:

(Obviously returns are not scrapped or sold as used or second-hand unless their condition absolutely requires it... )

 I believe that sadly a lot of stuff that gets returned does just get binned (or shipped off to become someone else's problem) from a lot of big retailers. It's part of the problem 

Most is sold as job lots to other companies, it often ends up on market stalls, online auction sites etc. 

sheramber said:

How many clothes items have been tried on and returned- both online and in some stores?  

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/mar/31/what-happens-when-we-send-back-unwanted-clothes

tightauldgit

Manxman_in_exile said:

eskbanker said:

Yes, point taken, but I think there's actually a difference between what's legally permitted prior to returning goods under the CCRs and determining whether something has been used (as far as another buyer would be concerned), even though a Venn diagram of those two conditions will undoubtedly overlap a fair bit....

Fair enough, but I would argue that anything that has been legitimately returned under the CCRs is, by implied definition, unused and can be sold as "new".

Whether or not a subsequent buyer would consider it used is irrelevant.  As I said earlier, it's the quid pro quo buyers must accept if they want the convenience and flexibility of buying online.

And I'd argue the same applies to any item returned under a seller's own returns policy if that policy says the item must be "unused".

Would a shop display item be considered 'legally new'? Because I don't think most consumers would regard a display item as good as new hence why they are often discounted. Equally, I quite often see retailers listing things as 'open box' at a discount which I presume means it was returned but not faulty.