Being asked Return Fee for a “New” Item That Was Clearly Returned

Grumpy_chap

GDB2222 said:

FWIW, I'm with the OP on this one. It's part of the regs that sellers have to accept returns, but I'm not at all convinced that these items should be resold as new. There really should be some reduction in the price to reflect the "it has been opened and pawed over by another customer" status. Maybe less so for a cooker hood than for something more personal.

Amazon manage this with their warehouse items.

I disagree, or at least think the reduction would have to be zero.

How else can businesses actually survive? 
A business has to sell the product and ship it out which means a certain amount of irrecoverable cost in incurred.
The customer receives the item and can inspect and can return for change of mind "any - or no - reason".  The item gets shipped back to the supplier who incurs further irrecoverable cost to process the item back to stock.

How much discount do you think the next purchaser should benefit by?

How is this cost to be met?  
It would have to mean either that the costs for everyone are higher in the first place so that some can have the "returned item discount" or the retailer suffers the depreciation and ceases to trade.

Maybe your driver for such a comment is that a return to bricks & mortar shopping is required but even there returns can be common place.

The current rules do allow the retailer to apply a reduction in the refund if the goods are not returned in their original condition.  That would allow the goods to then be resold at a discount.  
If the resale discount is to be applied for every returned item, it would mean the refund can never be the full amount.  

The current rules also allow returns to be restricted for "personal" items.

sheramber

The OP wants to return the cooker hood as it is not suitable . A change of mind return. 

She wants a free return because the box had previously been returned by another customer. 

savergrant

sheramber said:

The OP wants to return the cooker hood as it is not suitable . A change of mind return. 

She wants a free return because the box had previously been returned by another customer. 

The op believes the product was misrepresented as 'new' and is therefore asking why they should have to pay to return it.

born_again

savergrant said:

sheramber said:

The OP wants to return the cooker hood as it is not suitable . A change of mind return. 

She wants a free return because the box had previously been returned by another customer. 

The op believes the product was misrepresented as 'new' and is therefore asking why they should have to pay to return it.

Because no matter what this is a change of mind return. The fact the box was open is a side issue. 
I guess retailer could say, OK free return, but only for a like for like exchange. leaving OP is same place... 🤷‍♀️

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said: OK free return, but only for a like for like exchange. leaving OP is same place... 🤷‍♀️

Right to reject would prevent forced replacement  

Bit torn on this one, given the box holds no value to the product and will be binned it does give less argument for not meeting the description.

I'd be very surprised if someone took a cooker hood out the box, repackaged it, staff inspected it and no one put a single mark on it, freedom from minor defects falls under satisfactory quality, I think best bet for OP is a good looking over to see if there are any chip, marks or fine scratches present. 

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said: OK free return, but only for a like for like exchange. leaving OP is same place... 🤷‍♀️

Right to reject would prevent forced replacement  

Bit torn on this one, given the box holds no value to the product and will be binned it does give less argument for not meeting the description.

I'd be very surprised if someone took a cooker hood out the box, repackaged it, staff inspected it and no one put a single mark on it, freedom from minor defects falls under satisfactory quality, I think best bet for OP is a good looking over to see if there are any chip, marks or fine scratches present. 

Cooker hoods are generally made of metal, so pretty sturdy.  I dont think a fingerprint would count.

sheramber

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said: OK free return, but only for a like for like exchange. leaving OP is same place... 🤷‍♀️

Right to reject would prevent forced replacement  

Bit torn on this one, given the box holds no value to the product and will be binned it does give less argument for not meeting the description.

I'd be very surprised if someone took a cooker hood out the box, repackaged it, staff inspected it and no one put a single mark on it, freedom from minor defects falls under satisfactory quality, I think best bet for OP is a good looking over to see if there are any chip, marks or fine scratches present. 

Which the OP could have done while finding out the cooker hoos is not suitable.

GDB2222

sheramber said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said: OK free return, but only for a like for like exchange. leaving OP is same place... 🤷‍♀️

Right to reject would prevent forced replacement  

Bit torn on this one, given the box holds no value to the product and will be binned it does give less argument for not meeting the description.

I'd be very surprised if someone took a cooker hood out the box, repackaged it, staff inspected it and no one put a single mark on it, freedom from minor defects falls under satisfactory quality, I think best bet for OP is a good looking over to see if there are any chip, marks or fine scratches present. 

Which the OP could have done while finding out the cooker hoos is not suitable.

The OP isn't saying the item is damaged, just that the retailer doesn't appear to have checked it over at all carefully (or at all really).  So, there could be parts missing from the box, for example..

Ergates

GDB2222 said:

sheramber said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said: OK free return, but only for a like for like exchange. leaving OP is same place... 🤷‍♀️

Right to reject would prevent forced replacement  

Bit torn on this one, given the box holds no value to the product and will be binned it does give less argument for not meeting the description.

I'd be very surprised if someone took a cooker hood out the box, repackaged it, staff inspected it and no one put a single mark on it, freedom from minor defects falls under satisfactory quality, I think best bet for OP is a good looking over to see if there are any chip, marks or fine scratches present. 

Which the OP could have done while finding out the cooker hoos is not suitable.

The OP isn't saying the item is damaged, just that the retailer doesn't appear to have checked it over at all carefully (or at all really).  So, there could be parts missing from the box, for example..

There either were parts missing or there weren't that there *could* be isn't really relevant to anything.  The OP hasn't claimed *anything* was wrong with the item - just that they didn't want it any more (as it didn't fit) and was upset at having to pay for return postage - which the retailer is allowed to charge.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

Cooker hoods are generally made of metal, so pretty sturdy.  I dont think a fingerprint would count.

Indeed but equally they are also painted and scratching the finish is a possibility, no harm in OP having a good look over just to be sure  

sheramber said:

Which the OP could have done while finding out the cooker hoos is not suitable.

Reverse burden of proof within 6 months