Justmylook

mhcks

My wife bought a hairdryer from this company. We opened it and turned it on, but it wasn't what she wanted, so we elected to return it for a refund. They refused of course.  Initially they said we had "Used" the device (!)  I pointed out their Returns Policy states "signs of use"... there were none.  Now they are saying that the black plastic cable tie that hold the electric cable together in the box space beneath the dryer is .. a HYGIENE seal.  and we have broken the hygiene seal.  This is indeed a condition of their no returns policy which is why they tried this line.  They clearly don't appreciate that its possible to handle the dryer... plug it in and turn it on without undoing the cable tie... so what purpose it serves as a hygiene seal is beyond me!  And anyone with any intelligence I suggest.

Consumer law is quite clear:  online purchases can be returned and a refund requested;  the law allows functionality testing and handling to a similar degree as one would expect in a shop.  Certain items that have a genuine hygiene seal... like bottles of liquids, and CDs and earrings etc cannot be returned. This make sense. 

Is an item tested at home, in accordance with online shopping regulations  no longer "New" and therefore unsaleable?  I think not.  Bear in mind we all go into shops, and try on shoes, and trousers and brassieres ( not in my case), and the items we elect not to purchase are still made available for sale, as new, by the retailer.  

They are being deliberately obstructive of course and I guess they hope we will go away.  Their arguments are laughable and its obvious that their customer service agents have have not actually read their own refunds policy because they keep changing their reasons for refusing a refund.   Interestingly they told the UK distributor that "there was considerable evidence that the device had been used".. We are keen to see this evidence because  apart from our admission that we turned it on, and the fact we untwisted the cable tie,,, sorry I mean Hygiene seal, there is none.  The small claims court beckons.

eskbanker

Assuming it was an online purchase, you do have the statutory right to cancel the contract within 14 days but if it's been handled more than would normally be the case in a store then:

If (in the case of a sales contract) 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, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

The stuff about hygiene seals is nonsense though!  Were you invoking your right to cancel or just following their own returns policy?

screech_78

You are correct however that does mean you can’t return under their own returns policy… free returns, etc. 

you’re looking at cancelling the contract under CCR’s so did you make them aware you were cancelling? You might have been liable for postage costs to return back. 

mhcks

Thank you all for that;  i had not appreciated that we had to ‘cancel the contract’;  i had assumed that by requesting a refund we had effectively done so 

eskbanker

mhcks said:

Thank you all for that;  i had not appreciated that we had to ‘cancel the contract’;  i had assumed that by requesting a refund we had effectively done so 

You don't have to cancel the contract, but it's your statutory right to do so, that can't be overridden by Ts & Cs - you do have the option of following the retailer's returns policy instead but generally worth weighing up which works to your advantage.  Obviously if uncoiling a cable and switching the item on nullifies the retailer's returns policy but not the contract cancellation right, then this can make a difference....

mhcks

Panic over… I have just checked the letter I sent;  I did cancel under the regulations. It was a Citizens Advice template I used thank goodness!  I also requested a refund under their returns policy.  

But Justmylook are basically saying no.

Parlux confirmed today  that the black cable  twist tie is ….a black cable tie!   And has no ‘hygiene’ function whatsoever..( how could it after all) .

We have gone to the credit card provider for a section 75.  I guess we will have to see how that goes.

I’m still not sure whether we can get a refund:  Regulation 34.9 that eskbanker mentions,  suggests that they can claim the full cost of the dryer if they think we have diminished the value of the dryer by handling!!  I’m happy to give them £5 for a new cable tie and get £160 back… but more than that is theft! 

Surely the regulations allow one to open the box and turn an electrical device on?   I cannot get an answer to this.

eskbanker

mhcks said:

I’m still not sure whether we can get a refund:  Regulation 34.9 that eskbanker mentions,  suggests that they can claim the full cost of the dryer if they think we have diminished the value of the dryer by handling!!  I’m happy to give them £5 for a new cable tie and get £160 back… but more than that is theft! 

My understanding is that they'd be required to support any calculation of loss of value, rather than having the unilateral right to decide it's completely worthless, so there'd need to be an element of reasonableness there....

mhcks

Just to explain; my wife plugged it in and turned it on for about 15 seconds… no hair was made available for drying etc.  It was purely to see whether she could hold it since she wanted a lightweight dryer… as it was advertised as being ; accepted it’s  all relative, but shes 74! 
 

It was too powerful as well; i know  that sounds daft but her hair is brittle!   

mhcks

And they sent the thing back to us again yesterday! 

sheramber

mhcks said:

Panic over… I have just checked the letter I sent;  I did cancel under the regulations. It was a Citizens Advice template I used thank goodness!  I also requested a refund under their returns policy.  

But Justmylook are basically saying no.

Parlux confirmed today  that the black cable  twist tie is ….a black cable tie!   And has no ‘hygiene’ function whatsoever..( how could it after all) .

We have gone to the credit card provider for a section 75.  I guess we will have to see how that goes.

I’m still not sure whether we can get a refund:  Regulation 34.9 that eskbanker mentions,  suggests that they can claim the full cost of the dryer if they think we have diminished the value of the dryer by handling!!  I’m happy to give them £5 for a new cable tie and get £160 back… but more than that is theft! 

Surely the regulations allow one to open the box and turn an electrical device on?   I cannot get an answer to this.

You are allowed to examine it in the same way you could do on a shop.

You can test the weight without unwinding the flex and plugging it in.

Would you be allowed to switch it on in the shop?

RefluentBeans

sheramber said:

mhcks said:

Panic over… I have just checked the letter I sent;  I did cancel under the regulations. It was a Citizens Advice template I used thank goodness!  I also requested a refund under their returns policy.  

But Justmylook are basically saying no.

Parlux confirmed today  that the black cable  twist tie is ….a black cable tie!   And has no ‘hygiene’ function whatsoever..( how could it after all) .

We have gone to the credit card provider for a section 75.  I guess we will have to see how that goes.

I’m still not sure whether we can get a refund:  Regulation 34.9 that eskbanker mentions,  suggests that they can claim the full cost of the dryer if they think we have diminished the value of the dryer by handling!!  I’m happy to give them £5 for a new cable tie and get £160 back… but more than that is theft! 

Surely the regulations allow one to open the box and turn an electrical device on?   I cannot get an answer to this.

You are allowed to examine it in the same way you could do on a shop.

You can test the weight without unwinding the flex and plugging it in.

Would you be allowed to switch it on in the shop?

The ‘testing to the same extent as in a brick and mortar store’ test is not a legal test but gives people an idea of reasonableness. The purpose of the regs allowing consumers to examine the product is to allow them to test the products claims. Packaging removal is allowed in this scenario, as has been shown by multiple people in Small Claims. I think allowing the product to be plugged in and switched on for a short amount of time (15s in this case) is reasonable to test the product, regardless of if some retailers would let you do that or not in a brick and mortar store. 

The retailer is arguing in very bad faith by claiming that the zip tie is a hygiene thing. And in any case, the retailer cannot refuse to accept a return if cancelling under the CCR’s. The retailer here is clearly breaking the law, and treating their returns policy like it supersedes the statutory rights. 

OP - remind them that your rights are immutable and that you are returning under the rights described here (as you stated in your letter you sent) rather than their returns policy. If that doesn’t work, the next steps is escalation of the complaint (to a senior person like CEO/senior customer services) followed by chargeback/S75 or letter before action. Given they’re trying to deprive you of your rights, if it gets to court, you should have a pretty strong case.