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

YorkshireJames

@soolin thank you for that. Your comment is the best summary of the difference between eBay and Vinted that I've heard.

YorkshireJames

I was actually looking at Money Helper which is run by the Money and Pensions Service:
https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/getting-help-and-advice/consumer-rights/consumer-rights-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=Consumer Rights Act 2015,-Any product or&text=Satisfactory quality – your goods shouldn,purpose they were supplied for.

RefluentBeans

YorkshireJames said:

I was actually looking at Money Helper which is run by the Money and Pensions Service:
https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/getting-help-and-advice/consumer-rights/consumer-rights-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=Consumer Rights Act 2015,-Any product or&text=Satisfactory quality – your goods shouldn,purpose they were supplied for.

Sigh - the advice there is generally correct. But its not any online sale as they claim; only sales that are classed as business to consumer. For example; ordering off ASOS would be considered a business to consumer sale, but getting a second hand toaster from a private individual isn’t classed as a business to consumer sale (as the person selling it isn’t a trader). This is explained on the website you posted, but it’s right at the bottom. 

Things are, *ahem*, more complicated on Vinted and the such as some people would be classed as traders. For example, if you on the weekends you go scouting out local charity shops to try and find the hidden Prada handbag for £5 to flip it on Vinted for £500, you would likely be considered a trader. You bought the item with the intention to sell it; and thus likely considered a trader. 

Whilst this is somewhat of a tangent, it’s important to know your rights (and the limitations too). The CRA is a powerful piece of legalisation that provides a lot of protection to consumers. But, consider it was you selling the toaster online. 5 months later the guy you sold it to for £5 comes back and demand their money back because it started smoking. Even worse, he sues you because it set a small fire in his house, and it’s all your fault for selling faulty products, and not fully testing the products. You on the other hand just didn’t want to throw away a functioning toaster. You could see how it would seem unfair to hold you to the same level of responsibility as say a big company like Curry’s or AO. You don’t buy the toaster to then flip it later. You bought the toaster, used it, and then sold it onwards. 

That being said, all sales are governed by the sales of goods act, SOGA. This includes business to business and consumer to consumer sales. I believe there is a caveat in that legalisation for the goods being as described, but I’m not sure what the mechanism of exercising your rights looks like. I know restocking fees are common in B2B contracts, so there certainly isn’t as much protection for consumers in the SOGA. But that is the legalisation you should be looking at. The CRA doesn’t apply, at all, here. Even against Vinted. Vinted will always only be a platform to mediate the sale. If the person selling the item (as you said) isn’t a business or trader then you have to right to make a consumer rights act claim. 

eskbanker

RefluentBeans said:
The CRA doesn’t apply, at all, here. Even against Vinted. Vinted will always only be a platform to mediate the sale. If the person selling the item (as you said) isn’t a business or trader then you have to right to make a consumer rights act claim. 

That should presumably read 'no right'?

Pollycat

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… 

I think you misunderstand my point. 
I know what Vinted is. 
Vinted is very clear in their condition descriptions. 

Here are all the item conditions in more detail:

• New with tags: Just like in the store. The tags are still attached and/or it’s packed in the original packaging. Never used and has no flaws.
• New without tags: Brand new, but the tags or original packaging isn’t there. Never used and has no flaws.
• Very good: Used a few times, but still looks great. It might have a few slight imperfections, which are clearly shown and mentioned in your listing.
• Good: Used frequently and may have signs of wear, which are clearly shown and mentioned in your listing.
• Satisfactory: Used a lot and has defects, which are clearly shown and mentioned in your listing.

Buyers might cancel the order and return the item if its condition is significantly worse than the listing suggested. Thus, it’s always safer to choose a poorer condition if you’re in doubt.

My point is that you should not describe an item as new if it has been worn.
It is very clear "never used".
Worn once = used.
The correct category is "very good".

I do understand that any item I buy new from a store may have been tried on so your 'hate to tell you this...' comment isn't news to me.

Sellers on both eBay and Vinted should be honest about the condition of their items.

Pollycat

YorkshireJames said:

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.

Have you accepted the item or said there's a problem with it? 
I did this when an item was SNAD and told the seller their description was wrong - wrong size, wrong description.
They said to return it but I said they should pay for the return (despite Vinted terms).
A bit of back and forth - with me saying they had used a stock photo which is against Vinted rules and they agreed to pay for the return. 
I think you can also escalate an issue to Vinted but I'm not sure how effective this is.

YorkshireJames

@Pollycat I did not accept the item. I contacted the seller. The seller told me it was brand new even after I'd sent multiple photos of the staining. The seller eventually agreed to a return where I paid. I contacted Vinted and asked for a free return based on the item being wrongly described. Vinted just said I needed to pay as per the terms and conditions.

In the end, I've accepted the item as it was going to be more cost and time and energy (I have long-term health issues) to return it than it's worth. Obviously I've been ripped off as I was told I was buying a brand new shirt and I've been sold a second hand stained one. But I've already spent hours on it and I've been ripped off worse recently for a lot more. Sometimes you just have to give up.

Pollycat

I hope you gave bad feedback. 

HillStreetBlues

I have never used Vinted, I know now that I will never use them, will stick to ebay

Pollycat

HillStreetBlues said:

I have never used Vinted, I know now that I will never use them, will stick to ebay

Then your belief in what people tell you online means you are potentially missing out on great deals 

I bought a pair of boots - suede/leather upper, leather lined, leather soles - for £10.00 plus buyers protection plus postage. 
The cheapest pair of boots on the designer website was £700.
Described as 'very good', they looked as though they hadn't been worn.

Vinted has its problems but it also has its benefits. 
But if you'd rather be put off by negative comments without any personal experience...