Refused refund

tomatoebubble

savergrant said:

Okell said:

tomatoebubble said:

I returned a parcel to Nike via InPost earlier this year, but the refund has been refused... 

I don't suppose that you told Nike that you were exercising your statutory right under to cancel a distance contract, did you?

If you had you could try to argue with them that under reg 34(5)(b) they are apparently obliged to refund you within 14 days of you providing "... evidence of having sent the goods back".  Of course you could still try that line of argument but they might counter that you hadn't actually exercised your right to cancel under the regulations and had simply returned the goods under their own returns policy.

Why did you return the goods and why exactly are Nike refusing to refund?

Did Nike (1) send you the wrong goods in the first place and they are now saying that what you returned doesn't match what they think they sent you, or (2) did they send you the right goods which you returned, but they are claiming that you sent back something else?

Unfortunately Nike are saying that they have evidence that the goods weren't returned, and that a different item has been returned instead. Presumably the op was unaware that the item they received was not correct?
Claiming that you are enforcing your statutory right to reject would only imply that having inspected the goods you have decided they do not meet your needs, if the item sent was incorrect then it is advisable to be upfront and tell them they have sent the wrong item.
I had this a year or two back when I received a child's blouse in a bag, the size on the bag was correct but the blouse was a smaller size. I would guess that it had previously been returned in the wrong packaging. Having been warned upfront that the item I was returning did not match the pack note the retailer was very quick to refund and give free shipping for a future order.
If however I had just said 'I don't like it' they could easily have concluded that I had intentionally returned the wrong item.

So my question to the op is;
Are you sure the item you received completely matches the description? And if not, did you make Nike aware of that before returning it?

Hi, thank you!

Yes, i'm sure the item i returned matches the description. I ordered two colours of the same trainer and returned the pink. Please see items when tried on at home and return initiation below.

Is anyone aware of where i stand legally/can i quote any kind of legislation - as currently i'm £75 out of pocket and have no option of getting my return back

tomatoebubble

Okell said:

tomatoebubble said:

I returned a parcel to Nike via InPost earlier this year, but the refund has been refused... 

I don't suppose that you told Nike that you were exercising your statutory right under to cancel a distance contract, did you?

If you had you could try to argue with them that under reg 34(5)(b) they are apparently obliged to refund you within 14 days of you providing "... evidence of having sent the goods back".  Of course you could still try that line of argument but they might counter that you hadn't actually exercised your right to cancel under the regulations and had simply returned the goods under their own returns policy.

Why did you return the goods and why exactly are Nike refusing to refund?

Did Nike (1) send you the wrong goods in the first place and they are now saying that what you returned doesn't match what they think they sent you, or (2) did they send you the right goods which you returned, but they are claiming that you sent back something else?

Hi, they are claiming that i sent back something else. Please see post above showing pictures of my returns

visidigi

So whats likely happened here is the goods have been substituted during transportation back to Nike. So while you did return the product the courier delivered what was swapped out by someone who decided they would swap the contents. This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Okell

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

As far as Nike are concerned the OP sent back the wrong goods.  It's up to the OP to persuade them otherwise.  Or to sue Nike for the value of the shoes.

haze23

Okell said:

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

We'd all hope for a straightforward returns process, unfortunately, it looks like (1) is going to apply here. Sadly issues with distance/online shopping do seem to be on the increase, or maybe just more reported through sheer volume? Did Nike ever provide anything tangible to support their claim? Again, another frustration is being caught in the middle of their internal processes.

With regards to (2), not sure whether that's saying it's up to OP to pursue the courier or persuade Nike to do so. Either way, AIUI Nike paid for the courier, OP followed the return process so OP should only have to deal with Nike. How Nike want to handle the courier is up to them. Really that should be separate but I suppose Nike could chose to reimburse only if they are successful with the courier, which could drag things out.

savergrant

haze23 said:

Okell said:

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

We'd all hope for a straightforward returns process, unfortunately, it looks like (1) is going to apply here. Sadly issues with distance/online shopping do seem to be on the increase, or maybe just more reported through sheer volume? Did Nike ever provide anything tangible to support their claim? Again, another frustration is being caught in the middle of their internal processes.

With regards to (2), not sure whether that's saying it's up to OP to pursue the courier or persuade Nike to do so. Either way, AIUI Nike paid for the courier, OP followed the return process so OP should only have to deal with Nike. How Nike want to handle the courier is up to them. Really that should be separate but I suppose Nike could chose to reimburse only if they are successful with the courier, which could drag things out.

The difficulty is in proving that the package contained the correct item when it was handed over to the courier. Presumably there was no sign of the package having been opened in transit when Nike received it?
I suspect that Nike are only obliged to refund when they receive the item. If they haven't received the correct item they should return what they have received to you.
I doubt the courier could be held responsible if the recipient accepted the parcel and seemed satisfied that it hadn't been interfered with.

visidigi

Okell said:

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

As far as Nike are concerned the OP sent back the wrong goods.  It's up to the OP to persuade them otherwise.  Or to sue Nike for the value of the shoes.

the OP is currently having to take Nike's word for it...they can#'t prove what they are saying, nor return what they report to be the wrong item received.

There is a growing problem here, and the people swapping the goods know that they can get away with it - one of the biggest domestic carriers is losing over 20,000 package a day - without any resolution.

Unfortunately people expecting low cost, high service isn't compatible with the courier model in the UK - its a conversation for another day/place - but where Nike is one real rocky ground here is that they aren't able to prove what they are saying is right either...

savergrant

It needs escalating. Nike are holding on to property which is not theirs. They need to provide you with evidence of what was contained in the parcel and either return it to you or show that the police have it as evidence. The information they have provided you with is incredibly woolly.

Have you tried this,

Call us

+44 (0) 2035431524
8:00–20:00
Monday–Friday
8:00–17:00
Saturday

Okell

visidigi said:

Okell said:

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

As far as Nike are concerned the OP sent back the wrong goods.  It's up to the OP to persuade them otherwise.  Or to sue Nike for the value of the shoes.

the OP is currently having to take Nike's word for it...they can#'t prove what they are saying, nor return what they report to be the wrong item received....

Of course Nike can't prove that the OP sent the wrong item back.  But the OP can't prove they sent the right item back either.

The position at the moment is that Nike have the OP's money and the OP has nothing to show for it.  That is why I am suggesting that it isn't helpful to say to the OP that "This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier..."

Nike have no interest in or need to take anything up with anybody as Nike are curretly sitting quite happily on the OP's money.  The only party anything is up to is the OP, and that "anything" is either (1) to persuade Nike that they (the OP) sent back the correct item and that Nike need to investigate further with their courier, and/or (2) for the OP to sue Nike if Nike won't pay a refund.

If the OP had exercised their right to cancel a distance contract they could try arguing that Nike were bound to refund them within 14 days of the OP providing proof that they had sent the shoes back, but it doesn't sound as if the OP did exercise that right here.

The OP needs to push Nike further.

visidigi said:

Okell said:

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

As far as Nike are concerned the OP sent back the wrong goods.  It's up to the OP to persuade them otherwise.  Or to sue Nike for the value of the shoes.

... There is a growing problem here, and the people swapping the goods know that they can get away with it - one of the biggest domestic carriers is losing over 20,000 package a day - without any resolution.

Unfortunately people expecting low cost, high service isn't compatible with the courier model in the UK...

I wouldn't disagree that it is a growing problem.

Unfortunately, as you point out, it seems that consumers would prefer lower prices rather than having to pay a realistic cost for a more secure and more reliable delivery and returns system.

That's one of the reasons why I buy as little as possible at a distance - especially expensive items - and prefer to buy in person.

visidigi said:

Okell said:

visidigi said:

... This is up to Nike now to take up with the courier, they provided the label and the contract to deliver back to them.

Isn't it still up to the OP to persuade Nike (1) that they (the OP) sent back the correct goods and (2) to pursue this with the courier?

As far as Nike are concerned the OP sent back the wrong goods.  It's up to the OP to persuade them otherwise.  Or to sue Nike for the value of the shoes.

... but where Nike is one real rocky ground here is that they aren't able to prove what they are saying is right either...

I don't think any of knows what Nike can or cannot prove.  All we know is that Nike need to do nothing and have no need to prove anything unless the OP can either persuade them otherwise, or sues them.

I'm not defending Nike.  I'm trying to look at what the OP needs to do from a pragmatic POV to get her refund.