Distance selling and marked goods

CuriousConsumer85

tightauldgit said:

What was the reason for the return incidentally, didn't fit?

Didn’t fit / she didn’t like the fit. She bought multiple styles and returned some items but kept others. Under distance selling regs she doesn’t need a reason though. 

tightauldgit

CuriousConsumer85 said:

tightauldgit said:

What was the reason for the return incidentally, didn't fit?

Didn’t fit / she didn’t like the fit. She bought multiple styles and returned some items but kept others. Under distance selling regs she doesn’t need a reason though. 

Yes I know she doesn't need a reason but if you are trying to establish that it wasn't excessively handled then if she just didn't like the colour or whatever then I think you could say there was no need for her to try it on to establish whether she wanted to keep it. In this case at least you can say that there was no way for her to tell it didn't fit how she wanted without trying it on. 

That would only then leave the question as to whether leaving deo marks on something you try on is reasonable or not. Legally it may well be though I can see why a retailer would be annoyed by it. 

Alderbank

Unfortunately the only remedy available under the Consumer Rights Act is the small claims court.

How did your friend pay for the goods? If it was a payment scheme like PayPal, Klarna, LayBuy, etc. they might have an easier scheme for resolving disputes.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

The business is not necessarily being inconsistent with statutory rights they are just taking a different view from you on what is excessive handling and I do have some sympathy with them on that front.

Yes they are their policy does not comply with the legislation, it's not a case of arguing over diminished value but in fact one of outright denying the right to cancel.

Ironically had the trader complied with the legislation they'd be in a far better position as a deduction would be possible, as it stands one is not and a full refund is due.

I'm sure you've said before you run a small business and businesses like the one OP's friend is dealing with tarnish the general good name of small businesses, you shouldn't be sympathetic towards them, you should be irritated by their poor behaviour! 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

The business is not necessarily being inconsistent with statutory rights they are just taking a different view from you on what is excessive handling and I do have some sympathy with them on that front.

Yes they are their policy does not comply with the legislation, it's not a case of arguing over diminished value but in fact one of outright denying the right to cancel.

No its not. You have the right to cancel if you return the item in good condition and not (in the opinion of the retailer) excessively handled. 

Manxman_in_exile

registertocomment said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

bris said:

The refund up to 100% for hygiene reasons springs to mind here, these will either be returned  to your friend or binned by them.

They are not going to wash them and try and sell them again, you would be disgusted if you found out you were getting rejected swimwear would you not?

But this is precisely why there are some things I most certainly will not buy online.

The downside of consumers having the right to send online purchases back is... that other consumers also have the right to send online purchases back.

And unless the items are "sealed", hygiene reasons don't enter into it.  (As I pointed out earlier)

Based on your comment I'd say it's fair to assume you're male. As a woman I have many a times tried on swimwear and underwear on in stores and it is certainly common to do so. I also see that the OP said the item of swimwear was a top which are never hygiene sealed etc. 

I think it's quite bad that they are refusing a refund when the likes of larger brands (ASOS for example) wouldn't bat an eyelid. 

I am male but I am also well aware that women try on swimwear and underwear in shops!

I didn't make my comment clear but I actually buy virtually nothing online because you never know its history.  It's not just limited to swimwear and underwear*.  But if I do buy something online I do so with the knowledge that perhaps 100 people have tried it out before me and didn't like it.  The last time I made this comment was when somebody was complaining about an expensive piece of camera kit that they thought must have been previously opened and returned by someone.  Well of course it had!

And if my previous posts weren't clear, of course traders can't refuse returns of swimwear and underwear - unless they are sealed and the seal was broken after delivery.

*Actually that isn't quite true.  My last purchase online for myself was underwear from M&S.  (And that was only because I'd waited over a year for that underwear to be available instore and it never was - so I had to resort to buying it onlne).  I had to return them.  And they accepted the return even though their T&Cs claim that they can't.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

The business is not necessarily being inconsistent with statutory rights they are just taking a different view from you on what is excessive handling and I do have some sympathy with them on that front.

Yes they are their policy does not comply with the legislation, it's not a case of arguing over diminished value but in fact one of outright denying the right to cancel.

No its not. You have the right to cancel if you return the item in good condition and not (in the opinion of the retailer) excessively handled. 

That's not correct I'm afraid. 

Where it exists the trader can not deny the consumer the right to cancel.

Once the consumer cancels they need to return the goods (or make them available for collection if the trader offered to collect). 

If the consumer diminishes the value through excessive handling a refund may be reduced and that could, if warranted, be 100% meaning the consumer gets nothing back (including the goods because they would be worthless). 

Cancel > return > refund (which may end up being £0.00). The first in this list (cancel) can not be denied. 



However the main point you're missing from this thread is that in this instance the trader can not impose a deduction as their terms do not meet the requirements.  

CuriousConsumer85

Manxman_in_exile said:

I didn't make my comment clear but I actually buy virtually nothing online because you never know its history.  It's not just limited to swimwear and underwear*.  But if I do buy something online I do so with the knowledge that perhaps 100 people have tried it out before me and didn't like it.  The last time I made this comment was when somebody was complaining about an expensive piece of camera kit that they thought must have been previously opened and returned by someone.  Well of course it had!

*Actually that isn't quite true.  My last purchase online for myself was underwear from M&S.  (And that was only because I'd waited over a year for that underwear to be available instore and it never was - so I had to resort to buying it onlne).  I had to return them.  And they accepted the return even though their T&Cs claim that they can't.

This is very insightful @Manxman_in_exile   I don't think your concern is entirely resolved through buying in-store though but at least in store you have the ability to inspect for any....errrr...  soilage before you purchase.  I hope you now have sufficient underwear stocks!

Manxman_in_exile

CuriousConsumer85 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I didn't make my comment clear but I actually buy virtually nothing online because you never know its history.  It's not just limited to swimwear and underwear*.  But if I do buy something online I do so with the knowledge that perhaps 100 people have tried it out before me and didn't like it.  The last time I made this comment was when somebody was complaining about an expensive piece of camera kit that they thought must have been previously opened and returned by someone.  Well of course it had!

*Actually that isn't quite true.  My last purchase online for myself was underwear from M&S.  (And that was only because I'd waited over a year for that underwear to be available instore and it never was - so I had to resort to buying it onlne).  I had to return them.  And they accepted the return even though their T&Cs claim that they can't.

This is very insightful @Manxman_in_exile   I don't think your concern is entirely resolved through buying in-store though but at least in store you have the ability to inspect for any....errrr...  soilage before you purchase.  I hope you now have sufficient underwear stocks!

    I don't honestly know if they'd been "tried out" before I received them or not.  You may be aware that gents underwear from M&S can come in packs of 5 packed into a sort of cardboard holder.  When I received this particular package one pair was missing and the remaining four pairs had obviously been removed from the cardboard holder and then put back - very badly.

It may have been a warehouse mishap or they may have been returns that hadn't been properly checked - I don't know.  But I was surprised that they'd been dispatched as they had been.

CuriousConsumer85

Manxman_in_exile said:

    I don't honestly know if they'd been "tried out" before I received them or not.  You may be aware that gents underwear from M&S can come in packs of 5 packed into a sort of cardboard holder.  When I received this particular package one pair was missing and the remaining four pairs had obviously been removed from the cardboard holder and then put back - very badly.

You should've demanded at least 25% off!