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

RefluentBeans

Ergates said:

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.

The copy pasta type of message as suggested by some users here also, in my experience, leads to more hostility. Better to treat people like humans than robots. You can say you know your rights in multiple other ways than copy pasta legalese. 

km1500

Ravioli is my favourite 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

You *might* be right, but it's an argument based on a particular semantic interpretation of specific wording - not exactly black and white.   

Either that's their return policy and there's no mention of the right to cancel (unless I'm missing it, always happy to be corrected) or it's a mash of the two, either way it doesn't comply with the right to cancel in my view.

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

You *might* be right, but it's an argument based on a particular semantic interpretation of specific wording - not exactly black and white.   

Either that's their return policy and there's no mention of the right to cancel (unless I'm missing it, always happy to be correct) or it's a mash of the two, either way it doesn't comply with the right to cancel in my view.

"in my view" is the operative term here - that's *your* interpretation of it.  Are you absolutely 100% certain this would win a case in court if it came to that?

If not, then maybe we should suggest attempting some alternative methods to get this issue resolved first.  It's a lot easier to start small and escalate if necessary than the other way around.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

You *might* be right, but it's an argument based on a particular semantic interpretation of specific wording - not exactly black and white.   

Either that's their return policy and there's no mention of the right to cancel (unless I'm missing it, always happy to be correct) or it's a mash of the two, either way it doesn't comply with the right to cancel in my view.

"in my view" is the operative term here - that's *your* interpretation of it.  Are you absolutely 100% certain this would win a case in court if it came to that?

If not, then maybe we should suggest attempting some alternative methods to get this issue resolved first.  It's a lot easier to start small and escalate if necessary than the other way around.

I don't think a company with a £300 million turnover is going to court over a pair of shoes, not that I've mentioned or suggested OP do so?

It's a big company, CS will likely stick to the script, OP either sends the email and hopes it gets pushed upwards or they write to head office (is my advice based on, well, consumer rights).

GDB2222

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

You *might* be right, but it's an argument based on a particular semantic interpretation of specific wording - not exactly black and white.   

Either that's their return policy and there's no mention of the right to cancel (unless I'm missing it, always happy to be correct) or it's a mash of the two, either way it doesn't comply with the right to cancel in my view.

"in my view" is the operative term here - that's *your* interpretation of it.  Are you absolutely 100% certain this would win a case in court if it came to that?

If not, then maybe we should suggest attempting some alternative methods to get this issue resolved first.  It's a lot easier to start small and escalate if necessary than the other way around.

I don't think a company with a £300 million turnover is going to court over a pair of shoes, not that I've mentioned or suggested OP do so?

It's a big company, CS will likely stick to the script, OP either sends the email and hopes it gets pushed upwards or they write to head office (is my advice based on, well, consumer rights).

I have found that, on numerous occasions, the customer service of large companies such as this stick to the script, as you put it, and there’s no way to escalate the issue. In fact, by far the easiest way to escalate it is to issue a court claim through Money Claims Online, which is a service offered by the courts. At that point the company needs to decide whether to defend the action in court or pay up, and usually they pay up. 

In fact, issuing a claim through MCOL feels like bullying. It’s one of the few ways an individual customer has the upper hand over a massive company. For example, if the company chooses to defend the claim, they cannot get their costs back from the consumer, even if they win. So, for most small claims, given it may cost them £1000 say to be represented, it’s far cheaper for them to cave in. 

I’m afraid that these days I don’t spend much time arguing with customer service. If I have a valid claim, I send in a letter before action, and 10 days later I issue proceedings. 

sirpod67

Thank you all for your comments. 

The shoes were not faulty. I am a 5.5 so always struggle to know whether to order a 5 or a 6. 

I believe the 'damage' is no more than would be expected if the shoes were simply tried on in a store. It is certainly not of a level had they been worn outside.

The retailer cannot prove (or I) that they were not delivered in that condition.

No one has mentioned passing this on to my credit card company to follow up. Do I have a case to do so?

With thanks again

sirpod67

Photos supplied by Net a Porter or the 'damage'

[Deleted User]

The wear does look excessive to me, that's not five minutes trying on in the living room.
I can see why they're pushing back...

Arguing that they had been delivered in used condition might have been a better approach?

sheramber

Would you expect to buy new shoes in that condition?