Warning on Debenhams Returns

Alderbank

daviddee said:

Debenhams,  two days after we had email them,  replied that they wanted photographic proof of the damage.  But by then we’d returned it. 

I did email and explain that there was no request on the page where the returns link  for photographic proof and that we’d already sent it back before we saw their email , but they just say it’s on their main website  and we sent you a request for photographic proof. 

To be fair to Debenhams, in 'Returns Information' on their main website Debenhams say:

Faulty Goods

We’re really sorry to hear that you’ve received an item that’s not in perfect condition. So that we can get this fixed for you please head over to our Contact Us section.

To help us get this fixed for you ASAP, when you first contact us please include the following information;

Your name

Order number

Product name and code

Picture of the fault

Description of the fault

(The product name and code can be found on your order confirmation email).

If you contact us via the form here please have an image of the faulty item ready 

https://www.debenhams.com/pages/informational/returns

eskbanker

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

eskbanker said:

Okell said:

eskbanker said:

Isn't it possible that OP finds their ability to enforce these rights compromised by the lack of proof of damage?  In other words, if OP says that the item was damaged but Debenhams dispute this and claim that they were just refunding on the basis of a 'change of mind' return (with postage thus being chargeable), then it wouldn't be clear cut as far as chargeback or court are concerned?

Doesn't the reverse burden of proof apply here?

Debenham's need to "prove" it wasn't damaged.  The OP needs prove nothing.

My understanding is that if goods are non-conformant, the burden of proof is on the retailer to demonstrate that this wasn't the case at the time of sale, as it will otherwise be assumed to have been so for the first six months.

However, if there's a need to demonstrate that the goods are non-conformant in the first place, surely that's a different scenario where it's up to the purchaser to be able to show that?

Regs simply say 

goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. 

So no I don’t think there is any requirement to prove in the first instance.

This reverse burden of proof doesn’t apply to short term right to reject but Debenhams can’t simply not inspect the item to confirm and tell the customer tough luck.

They may prefer the customer provides photos to save the cost of return but I can’t see a consumer is going to be penalised for not doing this and instead returning the goods.

Heck it’s £1.99, not like OP spent £100 returning a fridge and is now demanding the money

But that quoted extract is silent on burden of proof of the non-conformance itself, and is simply saying that if non-conformant then it's assumed to have been so when delivered unless that can be disproved.

Re "Debenhams can’t simply not inspect the item to confirm and tell the customer tough luck", the point I was making is that if they do assert that there's no evidence of non-conformance, OP doesn't have anything tangible to counter that with, so if they're currently being uncooperative then it's harder for OP to recover the money if Debenhams have refused to refund the return postage cost.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

eskbanker said:

Okell said:

eskbanker said:

Isn't it possible that OP finds their ability to enforce these rights compromised by the lack of proof of damage?  In other words, if OP says that the item was damaged but Debenhams dispute this and claim that they were just refunding on the basis of a 'change of mind' return (with postage thus being chargeable), then it wouldn't be clear cut as far as chargeback or court are concerned?

Doesn't the reverse burden of proof apply here?

Debenham's need to "prove" it wasn't damaged.  The OP needs prove nothing.

My understanding is that if goods are non-conformant, the burden of proof is on the retailer to demonstrate that this wasn't the case at the time of sale, as it will otherwise be assumed to have been so for the first six months.

However, if there's a need to demonstrate that the goods are non-conformant in the first place, surely that's a different scenario where it's up to the purchaser to be able to show that?

Regs simply say 

goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. 

So no I don’t think there is any requirement to prove in the first instance.

This reverse burden of proof doesn’t apply to short term right to reject but Debenhams can’t simply not inspect the item to confirm and tell the customer tough luck.

They may prefer the customer provides photos to save the cost of return but I can’t see a consumer is going to be penalised for not doing this and instead returning the goods.

Heck it’s £1.99, not like OP spent £100 returning a fridge and is now demanding the money

But that quoted extract is silent on burden of proof of the non-conformance itself, and is simply saying that if non-conformant then it's assumed to have been so when delivered unless that can be disproved.

Re "Debenhams can’t simply not inspect the item to confirm and tell the customer tough luck", the point I was making is that if they do assert that there's no evidence of non-conformance, OP doesn't have anything tangible to counter that with, so if they're currently being uncooperative then it's harder for OP to recover the money if Debenhams have refused to refund the return postage cost.

That’s because the CRA is matter of fact, it is talking about what happens when the goods do not conform.

The ordinary position is that burden of proof lies with the person making the claim so if you want to make a claim because the other party breached the contract you need to prove that is the case.

The CRA affords the consumer the opposite for the 6 month period.

If it worked as you imply then all retailers would say you prove it regardless of the timeframe

eskbanker

It still seems to me that we're talking about different things but it's probably run its course!

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:

It still seems to me that we're talking about different things but it's probably run its course!

Sorry if missed something I think if someone goes to court they’d only need a counter to actual evidence rather than the retailer’s say so.

Basically what people are told here after 6 months, so if you say a TV is faulty and the retailer has it independently inspected to confirm no fault they should then return the TV and you either accept that or get your own report, which if different the court will decide which is correct. 

Obviously for £1.99 no one will be going to court so chargeback will hopefully cover OP for the shortfall. 

Alderbank

I'm sure some of us are talking about different things.

The OP said he was only posting to warn us about Debenhams returns policy, to warn people take photographs of damaged goods if returning to Debenhams.

Okell

eskbanker said:

Okell said:

eskbanker said:

Isn't it possible that OP finds their ability to enforce these rights compromised by the lack of proof of damage?  In other words, if OP says that the item was damaged but Debenhams dispute this and claim that they were just refunding on the basis of a 'change of mind' return (with postage thus being chargeable), then it wouldn't be clear cut as far as chargeback or court are concerned?

Doesn't the reverse burden of proof apply here?

Debenham's need to "prove" it wasn't damaged.  The OP needs prove nothing.

... However, if there's a need to demonstrate that the goods are non-conformant in the first place, surely that's a different scenario where it's up to the purchaser to be able to show that?

Well the OP has two bits of prima facie evidence

1.  The item is broken, therefore it doesn't conform.

2.  The Op can provide a sworn statement that it arrived broken.

That is evidence showing that the item does not conform.

If the trader can produce contrary "evidence" showing that it did conform on the date of purchase, it would be up to a court to decide who was the more credible.

Where I think I was wrong and the lunatic has corrected me is that for the short term right to reject the reverse burden of proof does not apply and the consumer does have to show that the item does not conform, and maybe that's what you were questioning about my earlier post(?)

daviddee

Hi. I don’t seem to be able to use  the quote function.  

So just picking up on a point Alderbank made which was
“ To be fair to Debenhams, in 'Returns Information' on their main website Debenhams say:“
that’s correct Im  not disputing that it was there on their main website. .  

What I’m saying is that when you buy a product that Debenhams says is from a third party seller, they make it clear it has to be returned to the third party seller  and  not to Debenhams and when you go to your order, the link they provided for returns does  not direct you to the Debenhams returns page, it sends you directly to the third party returns service, which in this case was the Royal Mail . Which had no details on it about Debenhams returns policy of asking for photographic proof. It just asked you to chose a reason for return   

My point is that if Debenhams are going to want photographic proof then that information should be on all links, or that they first direct  you through the  link to their returns policy, before then directing you further to the third party returns page.  

I hope that makes sense and doesn’t sound too unreasonable a point to make. It’s really about the principle of returns policy being visible on all links
i really appreciate all the responses. They’re making interesting reading.  . 

eskbanker

Okell said:

eskbanker said:

Okell said:

eskbanker said:

Isn't it possible that OP finds their ability to enforce these rights compromised by the lack of proof of damage?  In other words, if OP says that the item was damaged but Debenhams dispute this and claim that they were just refunding on the basis of a 'change of mind' return (with postage thus being chargeable), then it wouldn't be clear cut as far as chargeback or court are concerned?

Doesn't the reverse burden of proof apply here?

Debenham's need to "prove" it wasn't damaged.  The OP needs prove nothing.

... However, if there's a need to demonstrate that the goods are non-conformant in the first place, surely that's a different scenario where it's up to the purchaser to be able to show that?

Well the OP has two bits of prima facie evidence

1.  The item is broken, therefore it doesn't conform.

2.  The Op can provide a sworn statement that it arrived broken.

That is evidence showing that the item does not conform.

If the trader can produce contrary "evidence" showing that it did conform on the date of purchase, it would be up to a court to decide who was the more credible.

Where I think I was wrong and the lunatic has corrected me is that for the short term right to reject the reverse burden of proof does not apply and the consumer does have to show that the item does not conform, and maybe that's what you were questioning about my earlier post(?)

Yes, my point was really that, by virtue of returning the item without taking a photo, OP has no actual evidence of the alleged non-conformance, even though they can swear to it.  In the context of an uncooperative trader choosing to refund on the basis of their returns policy rather than as a faulty product, it still seems to me that lack of such evidence weakens OP's case in practical terms, even if not strictly legal ones, in that it's obviously not going to reach a court and it's unclear to me that this is actually a valid chargeback....

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:it's unclear to me that this is actually a valid chargeback....

@born_again will no doubt confirm but I believe for SNAD if the customer is only part refunded they can then raise a chargeback for the remainder. 

What the bank requests of the customer and what the bank accepts from the retailer to defend I'm not sure but OP says the return flow asked to pick the reason for the return so presumably they have some kind of email showing it was raised as a SNAD.

If a customer wanted to be a pain for £1.99 I'm pretty sure if they raised a complaint with the bank because the outcome wasn't what they wished for the bank would probably refund the £1.99 out of goodwill (not to suggest that should be done for the sake of it but OP really is due the money, Debenhams terms about photos have no basis as far the CRA goes).