Vinted - stained shirt sold to me as new, but I have to pay return?

soolin

eskbanker said:

soolin said:

eskbanker said:

soolin said:

This is a link I often see posted on Vinted groups about items from a private seller needing to fit the description.

Buyer beware? Your rights when buying second-hand | Saga

If you buy from a private seller, you won’t get the same rights as you would from a business. Under the Consumer Rights Act, a private seller is only obliged to provide goods “as described”. 

I appreciate you're just quoting from a third party link but do you know where that reference comes from?  I can't see anything within CRA that covers sales by non-traders - the key parts each start with definition of applicability only to contracts between consumers and traders....

Unfortunately it is just one of those links that someone posted once and now gets posted to show that even buying from a private seller online gives the buyer a right to receive what they expected.

I agree It would be useful to have a definitive link that went to more of an official site, as we often get queried on the ebay and other boards where goods from private sellers have been completely different to that advertised . It would seem strange though if private sellers had complete impunity to send whatever they wanted regardless of what the for sale advert said. Even if that link showed that private sellers have complete freedom to send what they liked, a link would still be useful.

I could be wrong but suspect that private sellers will be bound only by the likes of Ebay or Vinted Ts & Cs, rather than CRA as such, but happy to be corrected!

I'm sorry if I'm going off topic OP, but this is an interesting discussion and may benefit my own understanding and ability to assist going forward.

On ebay the buyer has complete protection, an SNAD claim can be made regardless of seller status and seller is obliged to accept a return at their cost. On Vinted sellers have the choice as to whether to pay for the return or insist the buyer does, although Vinted to require that a return be accepted.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

Pollycat

What did the seller say when you contacted them?

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

 Although caveat emptor will apply & CRA won't  the shirt will have been misdescribed with the word "new".
The common terminology of "new" would be expected.  So if it came with the stain would be "new with defect" as just "new" clearly is misleading.
So ends up down to contract law, the OP didn't get the "new" shirt so there is a breach. The OP would be entitled to be put into the position as if the breach never  happened, this would include a refund of the item & any costs to return the item.
But to get that, if the seller refused the OP would need to take seller to court.

Pollycat

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

 
The common terminology of "new" would be expected.  So if it came with the stain would be "new with defect" as just "new" clearly is misleading.

So many misdescribed items on Vinted.
'new' in category but then described as 'worn once'.
That is really not 'new'

RefluentBeans

Pollycat said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

 
The common terminology of "new" would be expected.  So if it came with the stain would be "new with defect" as just "new" clearly is misleading.

So many misdescribed items on Vinted.
'new' in category but then described as 'worn once'.
That is really not 'new'

But Vinted is a second hand marketplace. It’s not designed to be a platform for retailers to use. I think the term ‘new’ is defined by Vinted as what you’d expect to find in stores. I hate to tell you this, but the chances are your ‘new’ clothes from the shop may have been tried on by someone else… 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

I assume the SoGA has a ‘goods should be as described’ term? But the mechanism of enforcing it may not be as straightforward as the CRA (I’m not sure - I’ve not really engaged too much with the SoGA). 

soolin

RefluentBeans said:

Pollycat said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

 
The common terminology of "new" would be expected.  So if it came with the stain would be "new with defect" as just "new" clearly is misleading.

So many misdescribed items on Vinted.
'new' in category but then described as 'worn once'.
That is really not 'new'

But Vinted is a second hand marketplace. It’s not designed to be a platform for retailers to use. I think the term ‘new’ is defined by Vinted as what you’d expect to find in stores. I hate to tell you this, but the chances are your ‘new’ clothes from the shop may have been tried on by someone else… 

The issue on Vinted is more blatant than that. It is not at all uncommon for something to be sold as new with tags, but actually been worn , washed, shrunk and then sent with the original label that was cut off and kept.  Admittedly it is more common that something is sold as brand new never worn, then later, 2 paragraphs down mention that it was worn on holiday a few times but is still technically new.

I suspect anyone that’s been on Vinted a while will remember the thread on the old forums about the wedding outfit. Someone was complaining that potential buyer was being an idiot as they asked for a price reduction on the outfit to reflect it wasn’t new. The link to the item in question showed an image of a person dressed in a very upmarket outfit, obviously at a wedding , item was a designer outfit being sold as new RRP was £450 and seller was wanting £400. Seller was mystified as to why people thought item wasn’t new, she had only worn it once to her daughters wedding so it wasn’t used, in her eyes used meant worn several times, unwashed, dirty or torn. The thread was quite popcorn material as seller absolutely refused to see any argument that an item worn once was anything other than new. 

It is a bit of a thing on Vinted that sellers sell items as new when they have been worn and I suspect this is because buyers know they are stuck with paying for a return if item is not as described. Occasionally a seller will list as new on Vinted, but also cross list the same item on eBay and sell as like new or used as they know on eBay they would have to pay for the return in an SNAD case. 

YorkshireJames

Pollycat said:

What did the seller say when you contacted them?

They said it was brand new and had only been taken out of the packaging 

I also had a seller tell me this week that a pair of shoes were brand new and only worn once - the soles were worn and pitted and the sides and front of the shoes were deeply creased.

I hadn't realised how difficult it was to return items and how dodgy some of the sellers, but as it doesn't seem to have anywhere near the protections of Ebay, I can see why it attracts dodgy sellers.

YorkshireJames

Pollycat said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Private to private comes under the Sale of Goods Act, as eskbanker points out I agree the CRA makes no mention of purchases between two "private" parties but rather contracts between traders and consumers. 

This usually comes up with cars but the goods should be as described however there isn't a requirement to be open about anything so a photo of a shirt only from the front with the stain on the back, although hidden, is as described, indeed it would be even if the photos were taken in a way to deliberately hide a stain.

If a stain occurred after the photos so the shirt didn't match the photos or the description said "no stains", and probably something along the lines of "like new", that would mean the SOGA kicks in but we don't really deal with it here so I'm not up on the specifics. 

 
The common terminology of "new" would be expected.  So if it came with the stain would be "new with defect" as just "new" clearly is misleading.

So many misdescribed items on Vinted.
'new' in category but then described as 'worn once'.
That is really not 'new'

This shirt was described as never worn.