Retailer refusing refund of goods bought online due to signs of wear

sirpod67

Can someone please advise me what my rights are.

I ordered some shoes from Net a Porter which I returned immediately as they were too large. Net a Porter are refusing to refund me claiming the shoes have been returned worn. They have sent me photos of some tiny scuffs to the leather soles. The shoes were tried on in a carpeted bedroom and I certainly didn't walk anywhere in them. If I did damage them it was no more than would have been caused by trying them on in a shop. They may have been delivered in this condition, I did not check.

I have disputed their claim and said I will contact my credit card company re a charge back. I have pointed out that they will lose a regular customer of 20 years but to no avail. 

They are threatening to return the shoes to me. My intention is not to accept them.

Can anyone please advise me as to my rights/how I should proceed?

Thank you

Ergates

Your rights are a full refund for the returned items.   The difficulty will be in enforcing this.

The Consumer Contracts Regulations state "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"

So *IF* a customer has worn the shoes beyond what would be done in a shop, then the retailer *can* deduct money from any refund.

What you will need to do is convince them that you have not done this.

Avenues to try:
Is the level of wear consistent with shoes that have been worn outside for more than a couple of minutes?  (i.e. does it look like *someone* has worn them).
Do they have any proof of the state of the shoes before they were sent to you?  e.g. were you the first person to be sent these particular pair, or has someone else returned them previously?

Alderbank

You say the shoes are 'too large'.

Do you mean 

1. they are uncomfortably loose for you when you tried them on
2. they sent you the wrong item (for example you ordered UK size 5 but the goods received are marked UK size 6)
3. the shoes are marked eg UK size 5 but you have measured them and they do not seem to conform with a size chart you have found

FlorayG

Alderbank said:

You say the shoes are 'too large'.

Do you mean 

1. they are uncomfortably loose for you when you tried them on
2. they sent you the wrong item (for example you ordered UK size 5 but the goods received are marked UK size 6)
3. the shoes are marked eg UK size 5 but you have measured them and they do not seem to conform with a size chart you have found

I have no idea how this is relevant

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

So *IF* a customer has worn the shoes beyond what would be done in a shop, then the retailer *can* deduct money from any refund.

Well they can, the question is whether they may.

Their returns page says

We reserve the right not to accept any return if the product shows signs of wear or has been used or altered from its original condition in any way or, as an alternative, may reduce the amount of any applicable refund or exchange accordingly.

I'm not sure that should be be viewed as compliant with regulations 27 to 38 as they don't have the "right" not to accept the return and the reduced refund isn't an alternative, it's their only option.

With that in mind I would say they've lost their right to reduce the refund, OP has 1 year and 14 days to make a clear statement to cancel their contract and a full refund is due within 14 days of making that statement. 

The problem is enforcing this.

OP you can try something along the lines of:

Dear Net a Porter

I am writing to advise that I am cancelling my contract as afforded under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

You are required to provide

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

"(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38"

As your return policy, which forms part of your terms and conditions, attempts to limit the rights of the consumer by stating you may refuse a return for goods not returned in perfect condition you have failed to comply with the information requirements.

As a result the cancellation period is extended to 1 year and 14 days:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

and you are not permitted to reduce the refund for handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods

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

(9) 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.
(11) Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.


The misleading information in your terms and conditions is a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, which is a criminal offence:


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/5

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (2)(a) are—

(k)the consumer's rights or the risks he may face.

I look forward to a full refund of my payment for the returned goods and an apology.

Sincerely,

sirpod67 

Alderbank

Because if the shoes are faulty (ie do not match the description given by the trader) then the trader must refund them under CRA.
If they are as described but the OP does not feel comfortable in them, they will probably wish to cancel the contract as permitted by CCR instead.

km1500

exactly this - are the shoes faulty or is it a change of mind return

GDB2222

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I'm not sure that should be be viewed as compliant with regulations 27 to 38 as they don't have the "right" not to accept the return and the reduced refund isn't an alternative, it's their only option.

I suppose the problem is that the reduced refund might be very small, ie the reduction could be very large? I don't think there's a good market for secondhand shoes. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

GDB2222 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I'm not sure that should be be viewed as compliant with regulations 27 to 38 as they don't have the "right" not to accept the return and the reduced refund isn't an alternative, it's their only option.

I suppose the problem is that the reduced refund might be very small, ie the reduction could be very large? I don't think there's a good market for secondhand shoes. 

It might be but to my eye they can't impose it because their terms aren't compliant with the required info  

DullGreyGuy

Alderbank said:

You say the shoes are 'too large'.

Do you mean 

1. they are uncomfortably loose for you when you tried them on
2. they sent you the wrong item (for example you ordered UK size 5 but the goods received are marked UK size 6)
3. the shoes are marked eg UK size 5 but you have measured them and they do not seem to conform with a size chart you have found

The problem is that "size 5" doesn't have an ISO or any legal definition. Most charts will say a size 5 is to fit a foot thats Xmm long but 1) theres not vast differences between sizes on the same chart and 2) there are differences between most charts by up to 4mm which is half a size.

Our foot is also a complex 3d shape and the idea you can define if a shoe will fit or not based on a single measurement is never going to work. Most of dont even have a pair of identical feet. Many of my shoes are from the same company and I range from an 8-9 in size depending on the width of the shoe and some of their shoes I just dont get on with in any size because of the heal cup. 

Sure if you ordered a 5 and a clown shoe turned up then you can argue it's miss sized, outside of that it's an uphill struggle to claim they are faulty because they are Xmm long. The Porter group of brands tends to be moderately good at saying if things are "true to size", bigger/smaller than normal and a recommendation to size up or down if you're between sizes. Dont buy much from them but the few bits I have their guides tend to have been accurate

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

GDB2222 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I'm not sure that should be be viewed as compliant with regulations 27 to 38 as they don't have the "right" not to accept the return and the reduced refund isn't an alternative, it's their only option.

I suppose the problem is that the reduced refund might be very small, ie the reduction could be very large? I don't think there's a good market for secondhand shoes. 

It might be but to my eye they can't impose it because their terms aren't compliant with the required info  

You *might* be right, but it's an argument based on a particular semantic interpretation of specific wording - not exactly black and white.   So  I don' t know if I would advise the OP to use it as the basis of their claim - it's more a last-ditch attempt than an opening gambit and it would be preferable if the matter can be resolved without having to have a court decide one way or the other.

I would also advise against accusing the retailer of committing a criminal offense without consulting a legal representative first.

The retailer is claiming they won't refund because they believe the shoes have been worn beyond just trying them on.  The best option is to persuade them that this hasn't happened and/or that this wasn't done whilst in the OP's care.