Justmylook

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

Their terms say

In the interests of hygiene, we are unable to exchange or refund any grooming, cosmetic or electrical products once the security or hygiene tag/seal has been removed, or if they show signs of use unless the items are faulty.

Now an electric toothbrush probably, an electric razor maybe (although probably not when considering the EU ruling on a case about a mattress) a hair dryer, not a chance. 

Regarding you opening it, because their terms do not comply with the legislation they've lost the opportunity to make a deduction from the refund for any use so that point is moot. 

Easiest way is the bank, if the bank goes for a chargeback instead of S75 the company will have the money taken back from them, if that happens let Justmyook know twice in writing they can collect the hair dryer and if they don't collect take reasonable care of it for 6 years (stick it in the box and poke it at the back of the wardrobe, don't throw it away).

If the bank goes for S75 they'll likely cover the refund and probably won't want the hair dryer. 

If you come across issues with the bank, or the retailer gets funny about a chargeback, pop back and I'll put together an email/letter for you stating the exact position in accordance with the legislation.

As an aside:

Goods must be returned in their original, sealed packaging and re-saleable. (This does not affect your statutory rights) If items are received back damaged, or missing items we are entitled to make a charge to cover the cost of this, and thus this may affect the amount credited to you. 

Potential breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations there and another example of why their terms do not comply. 

mhcks

All thank you for your comments: 

I have written to a Director of the company: I doubt that it will make a difference.

It seems to me that a company can just bank on the assumption that most consumers will give up and take the loss and get away with breaking the law..  With Justmylook, a retailer of beauty products,  I understand that their Returns Policy,  for the majority of their products... lipsticks and bottles etc where a hygiene seal is used, is necessary.  I'm just not sure it applies to electrical goods ( The electrical get out clause in their Returns Statement ( Not sure its actually a Policy) is the final line, so it was probably an afterthought) 

As for testing an electrical device in a shop..  I don't know.  the law  ( 34.9)  uses the phrase  "handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop."  How else can the consumer  establish  the functioning of the device without turning it on?
 
I think some retailers would permit this.. others have functioning devices on display..  Currys for example:  all the TVs are on, all of which are available for sale even if on display!  I appreciate a TV is not a hairdryer.  

Odd that the regulations don't actually describe what the consumers rights to assess a device are, other than to say that if we go beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods we are punished.  

mhcks

 This  is the dryer as packed just before we returned it.  Notice the cable tie ( hygiene seal)  is correctly hidden beneath the box and cannot prevent one from touching the device nor removing it.  Although when we first opened the box the cable was actually sitting beside the dryer, so someone had already opened it.  But that's our word etc and we cannot prove that.  There are no "Signs of Use" of the dryer, accepted there are scuff marks on the black box 

ButtersUK

Nothing more on this for a while.  May I shoot off at a tangent whilst remaining with the original thread title?

May I ask if anyone has ascertained the correct postal address for JustMy Look.

I intend taking them the the Small Claims Court for failing to repair or replace an item which has failed and falls within the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

They have stopped answering my emails despite my giving them formal notice of my intention to cite them as defendants therefore the next step is to write to them but there are a couple of addresses and I read that some complainants to them have had their letters returned as undeliverable.

Thanks.

born_again

ButtersUK said:

May I ask if anyone has ascertained the correct postal address for JustMy Look.

I intend taking them the the Small Claims Court for failing to repair or replace an item which has failed and falls within the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

They have stopped answering my emails despite my giving them formal notice of my intention to cite them as defendants therefore the next step is to write to them but there are a couple of addresses and I read that some complainants to them have had their letters returned as undeliverable.

Thanks.

Top paragraph in their T/C.

ButtersUK

Thanks for quick reply. That's the one I've got but wasn't sure it was the right one to send a letter to. They have a high street shop too.
It's only £45 but I feel they've beaten me by just ignoring my correspondence.
Thanks.

ButtersUK

I have, this evening, written a "Letter before Action".to JustMyLook in Cleckheaton (thanks again to born_again for the address details).

The item is an ETI hairdryer and is the third, identical, dryer my wife has bought in recent years. One lasted three years, one five years and this current one, 18 months. The motor has failed after 18 months but the heating element functions (and would ignite the plastic case very, very quickly if allowed to). My wife uses it once per day in purely domestic circumstances. It's supposed to be a Professional, Salon capable item but doesn't seem to maintaining that durable, long lasting standard.

We have been told, twice, via email, that as the 12 month warranty has expired then they can do nothing regarding repair, replacement or refund. Which leaves two options - to accept the early failure and dispose of it, or to seek redress via the Consumer Rights Act 2015 hence the letter to them this evening to advise of the latter.

Murphybear

I bought a small electrical item from Amazon.  It developed a fault after a couple of days before the 1 year guarantee ended.  They sent me a replacement, no questions asked and they didn’t want it back again.  The replacement had a problem, so we sent it to the U.K. manufacturer who said we must have been using it incorrectly.  I contacted them and said I had a Physics degree and my husband was a retired electrical engineer  so the chances of us using it incorrectly were very slim.  Amazon sent us a third one which worked perfectly.  They then refunded my money because of all the trouble I’d had

Good for them.  I buy a lot of things from Amazon and I’ve never sent anything back, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d looked at my purchase record and decided I was a reliable customer 

ButtersUK

All valid points above. 

Now we just need get JML to adopt similar practices.

ButtersUK

Not only do they no longer engage in online correspondence with  me, they seem to have chosen not to bother replying to my formal Letter Before Action sent by post nine days ago.

The Trustpilot pages for them seems to speak volumes. they tell me not to expect to hear from them at all. Even if a Court ordered them to make restitution I still can't imagine them bothering to comply. I imagine they would just use any CCJ papers as a dartboard in the CEO's office.

The sitejabber pages are quite a revelation too.