Retailer refusing refund for item that they say I’ve used

RefluentBeans

piggylily said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head I’d be interested to know why you would not recommend a chargeback? I called my CC company for advice and they said they wouldn’t advise doing a S75 as it would “take years” but a chargeback is easier and quicker. 

Chargebacks retailers can ‘reject’ the chargeback. When you go through S75 the bank can investigate what’s happened and make a call on that. For you, it can be the same end result, but the actual process for the bank is different. The retailer only had a set time (45days I think) to respond, so if they reject it in that timeframe you won’t get the money back. S75 requires an investigation from the bank so can take longer. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

piggylily said:

Thank you for taking the time to review their terms and draft this reply.  Forgive me - I didn’t say that when I first told them I noticed defects and requested a refund, they replied that they could arrange collection with their courier (just under £19) or I could arrange one independently (which would have been pricier) - again, from the get go, this would have been at my cost not theirs. When I agreed to their courier collecting and paying 50% of the collection fee (just over £9 which would be taken from the refund total), I didn’t receive any instructions on packing and then the courier came who was DPD hence I could track when it arrived with them. Knowing this, are the references to postage and costs in your draft letter still appropriate? I ask because my head spins a bit at all the jargon and I want to ensure it’s appropriate before using. 

No trouble at all

So what you've said doesn't really matter  

If the goods can be returned by normal post the retailer just has to tell you that return costs are on yourself.

If the goods can't be returned by normal post then they have to tell you that the costs are on yourself and roughly how much they will be.

"Normal post" isn't defined but I believe it refers to the Post Office/Royal Mail as generally people should have an idea of those costs where I would suggest fewer people know how much couriers charge. 

If the box was bigger than 40*40*61cm or more than 20kg I would say they should have told you the return costs as part of the information.

To make life complicated if the trolley had a problem you would have the right to reject both and (if within 30 days) get a full refund and the legislation does state the retailer must pay the return fee regardless and a full refund is due but within 30 days it's down to you to demonstrate the issue. 

Without using too much jargon  Their claim of scuff marks is probably nonsense but generally a retailer may have a claim for damages if the customer does something unreasonable with the goods.

As an extreme example, if you reject a brand new car because the electric windows don't work but return the car after 2 days with smashed windows and the bumper hanging off I don't think it would be viewed the car dealer shouldn't be paid for the unnecessary damage. 

I would hope the letter would do the trick of them refunding everything rather than fight against someone who appears to understand their consumer rights better than they do!

piggylily said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head I’d be interested to know why you would not recommend a chargeback? I called my CC company for advice and they said they wouldn’t advise doing a S75 as it would “take years” but a chargeback is easier and quicker. 

With a chargeback the money is taken from the retailer, with Section 75 the bank covers the refund (and may seek to recover it from the retailer). 

It's been discussed here in the past that if you win a chargeback the retailer could come looking for the money (would be foolish in this case but a headache non-the-less). 

With S75 you've more chance of being home free with no repercussions. 

I'm not sure there's any truth to S75 claims taking "years" but given the bank pays the cost there might be an incentive for them to suggest chargeback over S75. 

RefluentBeans

Those terms see unfair (in the legal sense). Before you send your letter off, be sure to get the facts straight and tell them exactly what and why you’re returning the items. 

If you have not advised them the goods are faulty then you are rejecting under distance selling regs (which is where the consumer can be asked to pay for the shipping, if it’s in their terms). If you are rejecting because they are not of suitable quality, then you are rejecting under the CRA, and regardless they should pay for their shipping. Some retailers may ask for it back first (as a distance selling refs, asking you to pay postage) then transition into the CRA when they’ve assessed the product is faulty. As far as I know this practice is legal, and they’d just refund the additional postage you’ve paid. 

Just be sure to know what you’re claiming under as it seems unclear currently. If you haven’t stated that the products are faulty to the retailer you should do that asap. 

Alderbank

RefluentBeans said:

Just be sure to know what you’re claiming under as it seems unclear currently. If you haven’t stated that the products are faulty to the retailer you should do that asap. 

In the first post the OP said  'it was agreed that...they’d send me a replacement part for the trolley.'

I assumed from the above that the OP had stated the trolley was faulty and the trader had accepted such. What other reason would there be for the trader to send a replacement part?

RefluentBeans

Alderbank said:

RefluentBeans said:

Just be sure to know what you’re claiming under as it seems unclear currently. If you haven’t stated that the products are faulty to the retailer you should do that asap. 

In the first post the OP said  'it was agreed that...they’d send me a replacement part for the trolley.'

I assumed from the above that the OP had stated the trolley was faulty and the trader had accepted such. What other reason would there be for the trader to send a replacement part?

I’ve just re-read the post twice - in all honesty the whole thing somewhat confuses me. If OP could clarify to make sure I’m understanding correctly:

2 distinct items ordered (meaning they are not a bundle - or a product made up of components)

1 item was faulty (trolley). 1 item was not as expected (bag). This 2 items were returned. The faulty trolley under CRA, and the bag under distance selling. Photos were taken off the items before being returned to the store. 

The retailer tried to make the customer pay for 100% of the shipping, but accepted 50% as one item is faulty. The charge will be taken off the refund amount (I.e. the retailer has paid for the refund shipping on their account and reclaiming it from the customer in the refund - return shipping contract is between the courier and the retailer). 

The retailer has now received both items and upon inspection the faulty trolley is ‘scuffed’. 

I think my confusion was that I thought there was one item being returned. 

Based on OP’s other comments, there’s three scenarios I see 

Scenario 1: the two products are one product
As the invoice was for one line item, it suggests that this is one item. If this is the case, then the whole product should be able to be returned without charge. 

Scenario 2: CRA refund rejected due to ‘scuffing’ 
Without seeing what the issue with the trolley is, it’s unclear whether there is a fault. Offering parts doesn’t necessarily lead to admission of fault. And equally, it is fair that the retailer wants to inspect the product before offering a CRA refund. If the product is genuinely faulty then scuffing shouldn’t make a difference. If the retailer claims it’s not faulty, then the OP has photographic evidence that the products were sent in a good condition and if they got damaged in transit, the shipping contract appears to lie between the retailer and the shipper, so it’s surely on them to claim. 

Scenario 3: malicious intent 
The terms are odd. The company seems to be operating from a shared office address in central London - so unsure if this is just a correspondence address. The companies been registered less than 12 months, so hopefully this is just teething issues with dealing customer rights, not a company acting maliciously. But I would also keep in mind a S75 if needed, if they just stop engaging or just reject the CRA claim 

piggylily

@RefluentBeans thank you. I’m sorry I haven’t been clear. It is scenario one. In all the correspondence trying to organise a return, I didn’t check that the invoice shows the items as one. Scenario 2 May also apply here. I didn’t take photographic evidence of the items packaged. Looking back at the emails they have not said the word faulty. As I’ve said they offered to replace the handle but I would have to return everything at my cost and they offered to arrange the courier. I went back and said as the trolley was not of satisfactory quality I should not have to pay for the return. At this point, I assumed that the invoice had the two items separate not together as one. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

If you have not advised them the goods are faulty then you are rejecting under distance selling regs (which is where the consumer can be asked to pay for the shipping, if it’s in their terms). 

The use of language is very important, the distance selling regs are old legislation no longer in force, the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (or the CCRs) is the current legislation and the word "reject" doesn't appear, the consumer is exercising their right of cancellation, by using the term reject it confuses the CRR with the Consumer Rights Act

RefluentBeans said:

If you are rejecting because they are not of suitable quality, then you are rejecting under the CRA, and regardless they should pay for their shipping. Some retailers may ask for it back first (as a distance selling refs, asking you to pay postage) then transition into the CRA when they’ve assessed the product is faulty. As far as I know this practice is legal, and they’d just refund the additional postage you’ve paid. 

Issue is OP doesn't want a replacement part as a repair, if OP is over 30 days they'd have to accept it, if OP is under 30 days they'd have to demonstrate the goods do not conform if the trader requests such 

The CCRs give OP a direct right to a full refund and likely a refund of the return (which is only £9 and the main issue is the £342 for the goods). 

@pig@piggylily

Based on everything that's been said I'd recommend popping the email drafted over to them and see what they come back with, if they refund everything that's great, if they refund part or nothing at all pop back for more advice on the next steps  

piggylily

@pig@piggylily

Based on everything that's been said I'd recommend popping the email drafted over to them and see what they come back with, if they refund everything that's great, if they refund part or nothing at all pop back for more advice on the next steps  

I’ve received an email reply from the company:

Thanks for your mail.  We have referred the images to the manufacturer with your explanation.  We’ll revert soonest.  Thank you.

 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

piggylily said:

@pig@piggylily

Based on everything that's been said I'd recommend popping the email drafted over to them and see what they come back with, if they refund everything that's great, if they refund part or nothing at all pop back for more advice on the next steps  

I’ve received an email reply from the company:

Thanks for your mail.  We have referred the images to the manufacturer with your explanation.  We’ll revert soonest.  Thank you.

 

They don't seem to get it, either clueless or deliberately obtuse.

I'd contact your bank about S75  

Okell

Alderbank said:

RefluentBeans said:

Just be sure to know what you’re claiming under as it seems unclear currently. If you haven’t stated that the products are faulty to the retailer you should do that asap. 

In the first post the OP said  'it was agreed that...they’d send me a replacement part for the trolley.'

I assumed from the above that the OP had stated the trolley was faulty and the trader had accepted such. What other reason would there be for the trader to send a replacement part?

RefluentBeans said:

Alderbank said:

RefluentBeans said:

Just be sure to know what you’re claiming under as it seems unclear currently. If you haven’t stated that the products are faulty to the retailer you should do that asap. 

In the first post the OP said  'it was agreed that...they’d send me a replacement part for the trolley.'

I assumed from the above that the OP had stated the trolley was faulty and the trader had accepted such. What other reason would there be for the trader to send a replacement part?

I’ve just re-read the post twice - in all honesty the whole thing somewhat confuses me. If OP could clarify to make sure I’m understanding correctly:...

I did actually ask @piggylily yesterday why they were returning the goods (were they faulty or were they simply "unhappy" with them) but their response was rather confusing.

They appeared to reply "I've answered above" - as in they had already provided the information in a previous post, but what they'd actually done was quoted my question and then provided their answers within the quote, but without highlighting them and drawing attention to them.

I thought it was a rather abrupt and dismissive reply before I realised what they'd done...