TP-Link / Tapo LED Lights - Box states cuttable, then product fails and CS say no warranty if cut

Im_A_Mouse_In_Need

To clarify previous post, I did not actually request an exchange at any point, my initial email asked to return the faulty product. I got confused at some point in the process as TP-Link initially said the controller would need replacing, but they would not do anything about the light strip. But I didn't actually accept this offer anyway. Then they said they would "consult their RMA team regarding my case for a replacement" but didn't say what part they meant. At which point I rejected this offer and said I wanted a refund. There are no emails where I ask them to replace any parts.

TP-Link did not ask for a picture of the LED strip where I had cut it, but since someone on here asked I've added it to the OP. The light strip is a few mm thick curved rubber, hard to make a perfect cut but I think I've done it as well as can be done by hand, I took care and used sharp scissors as they suggested.

ThumbRemote

dumpster_fire2025 said:

ThumbRemote said:

born_again said:

Alderbank said:

If you think they have taken too long to replace the item you can exercise another of your consumer rights and tell them that you are now exercising your final right to reject for a full refund because they have now breached 2(24(c) of CRA. This says you are entitled to a refund if you asked for a replacement but they failed to do so 'within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.'

Genuine question.
On this point.
As OP has altered the item (cut shorter) even if they say you can.
Could they use that as a reason to either refuse a return/exchange. Or even reduce a refund amount?

No. 
The OP has used the product entirely in line with the manufacturers instructions. It is designed to be cut and advertised with that as a feature. 

However, the fact that they've put the onus on the consumer would indicate that they're passing the responsibility to said consumer.

In no sense do they "put the onus on the consumer". They advertise the product as cuttable. They can't ignore statutory rights because the customer has used the product exactly as is advertised.

This whole digressions is one of the oddest takes on consumer rights that I've seen on these boards. It's almost like a desperation to find a get-out clause for the retailer.