Returning an Amazon purchase from a private seller - wants £40 contribution

sparkiemalarkie

DE_612183 said:

so you have a return "sticker" for the return? - I only ask the question as they may be expecting you to pay p&p as well - I'd offer £25 off and perhaps accept £30

PHK said:

Just to add, I don't think we know how long the OP had the monitor.  They could be outside the period they have a right to notify a return under CRA but inside the 30 days the seller offers.

We had the monitor 2 days. The request for a return was after a couple of hours.
It was boxed up and dropped off at the local Hermes 2 days later
We had a QR code to download the label at the shop.

It was all immaculate apart from the split plastic bags that had the cable in.

sx

RefluentBeans

Hmmm - it’s a tricky one this one. The distance selling regs (now the consumer contract regs) say that you have a 14 day right to reject. This allows the goods to be inspected, but not more than necessary in order to ‘establish their nature, characteristics and functioning’. This means, for example, a toy in clear blister packaging probably couldn’t be opened, whilst say a pair of sunglasses can be taken out of their protective case. 

To confirm - you say ‘pristine’ condition - did you remove the screen protector/bezel protector - that clear plastic cling? To me, it is fair you are able to open the box, plug the monitor in, and check to see if it works. But, if you remove that wrap, I think that it goes past that ‘necessary in order to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning’ line. 

However - if the only packaging you removed was to inspect that the product switches on, and is as described, then I think they are in the wrong. The litmus test to me is ‘if I received this box in the mail tomorrow and it was sealed up with the packaging back on the best it can be - would I think it’s been used?’ This is by no means a legal test, and weighs heavily in favour of the retailer, but is a good thought experiment to make your arguments if they don’t refund the correct amount. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If the options for A-Z cover change of mind returns* Amazon will likely refund you regardless of anything else. 

*I'm not sure if they do, best to read up on the process.

You mention the seller is a private seller which means no right of cancellation as that applies to distance and off-premises contracts between a trader and a consumer, private sellers still have to abide by Amazon policy but their (in addition to your rights) policy is returns in unused condition. 

Worth noting their Amazon registration doesn't dictate whether they are a trader, you'd have to look at what they sell and make a guess as to whether they appear to be selling their own stuff or buying to resell. 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If the options for A-Z cover change of mind returns* Amazon will likely refund you regardless of anything else. 

*I'm not sure if they do, best to read up on the process.

You mention the seller is a private seller which means no right of cancellation as that applies to distance and off-premises contracts between a trader and a consumer, private sellers still have to abide by Amazon policy but their (in addition to your rights) policy is returns in unused condition. 

Worth noting their Amazon registration doesn't dictate whether they are a trader, you'd have to look at what they sell and make a guess as to whether they appear to be selling their own stuff or buying to resell. 

In all honesty - I didn’t know private sellers could sell on Amazon! I thought it was all traders - learn something new everyday! Makes Amazons marketplace more of a minefield! 

sparkiemalarkie

Hi, I called them a private seller for want of a better description in order to point out that the monitor wasn't from  Amazon itself. It seems they are a limited company with a store front.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

sparkiemalarkie said:

Hi, I called them a private seller for want of a better description in order to point out that the monitor wasn't from  Amazon itself. It seems they are a limited company with a store front.

That would be a marketplace seller  

The A-Z process appears to cover this, they mention

Any other reason (restocking fees may be deducted from the total refund) 
The seller agreed to give you a refund or replacement but you haven't received it either.. They issued you only a partial refund.

Restocking fees is a very poor choice of word and I'm sure that second sentence has a misplaced "it" but basically if you open the A-Z and say the deduction is disproportionate Amazon is likely to self fund the difference or claw it back from the seller. 

You should be able to open an A-Z from your Amazon order history assuming the order wasn't fulfilled by Amazon. 

If it was fulfilled by Amazon you'll need to contact customer services for assistance. 

Legally the seller can make a deduction if the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods. £40 for opening some cellophane on the leads is excessive in my view but if Amazon can assist the legal position is irrelevant  

RefluentBeans said:

In all honesty - I didn’t know private sellers could sell on Amazon! I thought it was all traders - learn something new everyday! Makes Amazons marketplace more of a minefield! 

Never sold on there as a private seller so not 100% on the details but private sellers do exist. Some categories are gated these days and private accounts might only be allowed to sell second hand, unless their accounts are grandfathered into old policies, but I think you can still set up new accounts as a private seller.  

Money_Grabber13579

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

 £40 for opening some cellophane on the leads is excessive in my view but if Amazon can assist the legal position is irrelevant  

£40 is about a 16% reduction in the original purchase price - would that be particularly excessive for an item that cannot be sold as new? If I were to buy a brand new car, I’d probably lose 16% just by driving it out of the showroom.

I could probably see £40 being reasonable but I suspect the seller is trying it on a bit if they are saying that £40 is only half of the deduction.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Money_Grabber13579 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

 £40 for opening some cellophane on the leads is excessive in my view but if Amazon can assist the legal position is irrelevant  

£40 is about a 16% reduction in the original purchase price - would that be particularly excessive for an item that cannot be sold as new? If I were to buy a brand new car, I’d probably lose 16% just by driving it out of the showroom.

I could probably see £40 being reasonable but I suspect the seller is trying it on a bit if they are saying that £40 is only half of the deduction.

It's one of those areas which isn't really clarified and could probably cause some long debates, whilst there is some guidance each case would need to be looked at separately by the court process.

The EU suggests 

The comparison with what the consumer can normally do in a brick- and-mortar shop serves as a good point of reference, for example:

—	Before purchasing audio/video and recording equipment, the consumer would normally be able to test the image or sound quality;

—	Trying on a garment in a shop would not involve the removal of the manufacturer’s tags;

—	The consumer would not normally be able to practically test household appliances, such as kitchen appliances, the actual use of which unavoidably leaves traces;

—	The consumer would not be able configure software on a computer; hence reasonable costs for any resetting of such equipment would also constitute diminished value.

—

The consumer could test perfumes and similar cosmetic products, which can be normally tested in shops, by means of a free tester that the trader could include with the product. That way, the consumers would not need to open the packaging of the product in order to exercise their right to establish their nature and characteristics (certain cosmetic products may be sealed for health protection or hygiene reasons – see section 5.11.4).

 
I would say it sits closer to the first example than the third, if that were to be the case the guidance says:

In principle, the consumer should be able to open the packaging to access the content(s) inside if similar goods are normally displayed in shops in unpacked condition. Hence, damage caused to the packaging by merely opening it is not a cause for compensation. However, any protective films applied to the item should only be removed where strictly necessary to test it.
 
I guess you need the leads to test the monitor. If that were also the case then

The diminished value of the goods can consist, in particular, of the cleaning and repairs cost and, if the goods can no longer be sold as new, the objectively justified loss of income for the trader when disposing of the returned good as second-hand good.

I'm not sure the average person would give a second thought to a lead not being in cellophane but if it were a concern resealing some leads should be cheaper than not selling as new. 

That said it can be very hard to even get something out the box without leaving some kind of imperfection on the goods, particularly with anything that has shinny plastic on the outside, and what one person classes as "pristine" may be completely different to what another would class it as. 

On the other hand large retailers tend to have generous return policies with distributors, I'm sure there are many cases of goods being opened, going round in circles a few times and then resold as new without the final buyer knowing the goods have been taken out the box to be looked at by someone at some point. 

Very trick area to clarify from a legal viewpoint.

From an Amazon viewpoint, if an A-Z offers a resolve then Amazon will either refund for their funds, which is ultimately their choice so no harm, or if Amazon took the money from the seller then on the one hand the seller agreed to aide by Amazon's decisions on such matters by selling on their platform but on the other Amazon can make unfair decisions and leave the seller out of pocket when they perhaps shouldn't be. 

Taking OP at their word of "pristine" I think £40 is a bit too much in this instance particularly if it were deemed you could examine and interact with such an item in a shop. 

RefluentBeans

I think @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head has hit the nail on the head. I think there’s 2 sides of this - the consumers right to test the product - originating from the fact you can’t examine the product online and recognising that the product images may be deceptive (by design or accident), and then the fact the consumer shouldn’t be left with a product which they cannot not sell due to diminished value. 

Obviously, we know what is on either end of the spectrum but it’s the middle ground where there is a spectrum of ambiguity. Big retailers don’t want to spend hours debating the law with someone and so will either instantly reject the claim or will just accept any losses from the accepted claim. This is often based on the product, the customer, and the damage. 

Looking specifically at the monitor, I would argue there should be inherent allowances for the consumer to take the product and plug it in. It is likely that in this case, if the consumer saw a working demonstration of the monitor they wouldn’t have purchased it from the store, and it’s not something you can achieve by simply having a turned off monitor on your desk. So I think the question is the extend of damage to the packaging, as OP says the product is in pristine condition. If there was a transparent peel that the OP removed from the screen and or the bezel - then I think that constitutes unnecessary removal of packaging whilst it wouldn’t if the peel was opaque. 

The question is - does that difference equate to a £40/16% loss in value of the monitor? I would say no - a piece of thin foam or even paper could do the same job. So I do think the costs are unreasonable in this case, regardless of if protective films were transparent or opaque. 

sparkiemalarkie

Thank you for your comments.

Thanks, since posting this I have just reread the_lunatic_is_in_my_head post above and will have a look at the A-Z process

I wonder what is the best way forward.
Do I simply accept the £40 loss? He has my money at the moment so he's in control
Do I contact the seller to negotiate down?
Do I contact Amazon and ask for advice?

I completely understand that he has a business to run and needs to make a profit....

But it all seems a bit excessive.
Maybe he should have been spelt out in very clear terms, BEFORE DISPATCH,  the penalty for unboxing and switching on the product.

Surely to  judge the performance of of PC monitor it needs to be seen working

The marketplace seller has claimed that by trying out the monitor we have devalued the item by £80 - 32% .
He is willing to accept 1/2 the losses and is therefore charging us £40
I understand that it is no longer 'NEW' but certainly 'LIKE NEW'
'LIKE NEW' identical monitors are on sale on Amazon for the same price I paid or even more

There was a very thin foam 'pillowcase' sleeve over the screen that was intact.

Any suggestions of what to do next ?

tia

sx