Refund rights - disagreement with Selfridges

Okell

sheramber said:

Okell said:

Xti said:

Just heard back and they’ve said they won’t overturn the decision as they do not accept returns where the tags have been removed. My issue is that I never removed any tags, I sent it back exactly how I received it. If there is any further advice I’d more than welcome it. 

If you've (1) clearly told them within 14 days of delivery that you are cancelling a distance contract, and (2) you have returned the goods to them within a further 14 days, then they have no choice but to accept your return.  The law does not allow them to reject it.

As @Alderbank has said, they are entitled to reduce your refund to reflect any loss of value in the bag, but if all they have to do is to replace the tags, the loss in value can't be more than nominal and so any reduction in refund should be purely nominal.

Go back to them and emphasise that when you told them you were cancelling the contract, (1) you were exercising your statutory right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and (2) they are not permitted by law to prevent you from exercising that right.  Make sure they understand that you were not returning the bag under their own returns policy.

(You can also refer them to para 12.1 of their own T&Cs which outlines your statutory right to cancel under the above regs and says nothing about needing to have the original tags - whether you removed them or whether they were removed when you received the bag:  Terms & Conditions | Info | Selfridges )

The missing tags could be the manufacturer’s brand tags, which Selfridges won’t be able to replace. 

But the point is that Selfridge's can't just say "We won't accept your cancellation without the tags".

They have to accept the cancellation.  If they want to tell the OP that the loss of the tags reduces the bag's value and therefore their refund by 100%, then they can argue that with the OP, but I don't think it's an argument a court would accept.

(I see from their T&Cs that they mention the tags in their own returns policy, but they aren't mentioned in the bit that relates to the consumer's right to cancel.  I suspect it's another example of CS staff getting confused between their own returns policy and the right to cancel)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

But the point is that Selfridge's can't just say "We won't accept your cancellation without the tags".

They can because they do, you mean they may not  

If they had worded their terms correctly they could reduce the refund but their terms state goods must be returned with tags etc so it doesn't comply and a full refund is due (They do mention reducing the refund but the previous note in the terms about goods having to be in original condition doesn't comply and is misleading).

Xti

Hi, an update on this. I emailed them again regarding your advice - reiterating my right to cancel, referring them to the 2013 consumer regulations. I also included the link to their t&c. In addition I asked for the cctv footage.

I heard back from them today. None of the above points were responded to. They said they stand by their decision and will not refund me and they will not communicate any further on the matter with me.

I have hit a brick wall. 

Thank you for your comments so far. 

I have just contacted the citizens advice. They have given two options - a debit card chargeback (I’ve started this process with my bank today). If that doesn’t work they’ve suggested a letter for court action. 

Okell

I'm not sure a chargeback covers your situation.  (And even if you did win a chargeback, Selfridges might sue you to recover the refund)

If you want to go further you will need to consider sending them a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action and if they don't cough up you will need to sue.

They are counting on you giving up and walking away.

How much is at stake?

Xti

£700 was the cost of the bag

Ectophile

If you paid by card, it's worth trying a chargeback.  It won't cost anything.

If they are stupid enough to try to sue you, you defend yourself and point out that they broke the law.  Don't forget to claim costs for attending.

Okell

Xti said:

£700 was the cost of the bag

Do you want to give Selfridge's a free gift of £700?

If you do, throw in the towel now.

If you don't then by all means try a chargeback (if paid by debit card) or a s75 claim (if paid by credit card).

Personally I'd send a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action and then issue a money claim if they don't pay up.

I believe the fee for issuing a claim for £700 is £70.  If you get as as far as issuing a claim, make sure you include the £70 in what you are claiming.

Be aware that if you do issue a claim and lose, you won't get the £700 or the £70 back.  If you win you get £770 back.  Nobody can predict the outcome in a court, but I believe the law is as I've stated above and previously - although I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving legal advice.

At worst you lose another £70.  At best you recover £700.

Your choice

Good luck

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

If you don't then by all means try a chargeback (if paid by debit card) or a s75 claim (if paid by credit card).

Personally I'd send a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action and then issue a money claim if they don't pay up.

I believe the fee for issuing a claim for £700 is £70.  If you get as as far as issuing a claim, make sure you include the £70 in what you are claiming.

Be aware that if you do issue a claim and lose, you won't get the £700 or the £70 back.  If you win you get £770 back.  Nobody can predict the outcome in a court, but I believe the law is as I've stated above and previously - although I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving legal advice.

At worst you lose another £70.  At best you recover £700.

Can do a chargeback on CC or DC, in most cases a bank will do a chargeback on a CC initially even if you were hoping for a S75 

With court claims you include "costs", whilst £70 is the issuing fee there are other fees that follow like a £85 hearing fee assuming its allocated to the Small Track (which is most likely). 

Whilst generally costs, other than court, are not allowable in the small track the judges do have discretion and can choose to make awards. It's fairly rare and you generally have to have been fairly vexatious but it would be remiss not to mention the costs in principle could be more than £70 win or lose. 

Okell

DullGreyGuy said:

Okell said:

If you don't then by all means try a chargeback (if paid by debit card) or a s75 claim (if paid by credit card).

Personally I'd send a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action and then issue a money claim if they don't pay up.

I believe the fee for issuing a claim for £700 is £70.  If you get as as far as issuing a claim, make sure you include the £70 in what you are claiming.

... Be aware that if you do issue a claim and lose, you won't get the £700 or the £70 back.  If you win you get £770 back.  Nobody can predict the outcome in a court, but I believe the law is as I've stated above and previously - although I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving legal advice.

At worst you lose another £70.  At best you recover £700.

... Whilst generally costs, other than court, are not allowable in the small track the judges do have discretion and can choose to make awards. It's fairly rare and you generally have to have been fairly vexatious but it would be remiss not to mention the costs in principle could be more than £70 win or lose. 

Yes - that's a fair comment.

But here, if the OP has taken all steps necessary to cancel the contract under the regulations (and she seems to be telling us that she has) then I don't see that Selfridges are entitled to just say "No - we won't let you cancel and we won't refund you either".

And even without the tags I can't see a court being convinced that the bag now has no value at all.  Were the tags the only thing of value?

I'd have thought the only party acting unreasonably here is Selfridges and I'd be very surprised if a court awarded costs against the OP given the information we have

Certainly if the OP only wants to use the threat of suing as a last resort then she should first try the s75 or chargeback route with her bank and see how that turns out.


@Xti -  DullGreyGuy is pointing out that if you were to sue Selfridges and lose at court, there is the relatively small possibility that you might get costs awarded against you, although that would only usually happen if the court thought you had acted unreasonably or vexatiously in bringing the case - which I don't think applies here.

So your best course of action at the moment is to raise a payment dispute with your bank and leave suing for later

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Okell said:

If you don't then by all means try a chargeback (if paid by debit card) or a s75 claim (if paid by credit card).

Personally I'd send a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action and then issue a money claim if they don't pay up.

I believe the fee for issuing a claim for £700 is £70.  If you get as as far as issuing a claim, make sure you include the £70 in what you are claiming.

... Be aware that if you do issue a claim and lose, you won't get the £700 or the £70 back.  If you win you get £770 back.  Nobody can predict the outcome in a court, but I believe the law is as I've stated above and previously - although I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving legal advice.

At worst you lose another £70.  At best you recover £700.

... Whilst generally costs, other than court, are not allowable in the small track the judges do have discretion and can choose to make awards. It's fairly rare and you generally have to have been fairly vexatious but it would be remiss not to mention the costs in principle could be more than £70 win or lose. 

Yes - that's a fair comment.

But here, if the OP has taken all steps necessary to cancel the contract under the regulations (and she seems to be telling us that she has) then I don't see that Selfridges are entitled to just say "No - we won't let you cancel and we won't refund you either".

And even without the tags I can't see a court being convinced that the bag now has no value at all.  Were the tags the only thing of value?

I'd have thought the only party acting unreasonably here is Selfridges and I'd be very surprised if a court awarded costs against the OP given the information we have

Certainly if the OP only wants to use the threat of suing as a last resort then she should first try the s75 or chargeback route with her bank and see how that turns out.


@Xti -  DullGreyGuy is pointing out that if you were to sue Selfridges and lose at court, there is the relatively small possibility that you might get costs awarded against you, although that would only usually happen if the court thought you had acted unreasonably or vexatiously in bringing the case - which I don't think applies here.

So your best course of action at the moment is to raise a payment dispute with your bank and leave suing for later

I agree its unlikely in principle, what's probably more likely is that the OP sues "Selfridges" or "Selfridges & Co Ltd" or some other mistake which would give them a simple defence costing the OP not only the issuing fee but also the hearing fee etc if they went that far.  There is an element of flippancy on litigating on here at times and in practice it's not that hard but there are common errors that cost people money. In Reed -v- Boswell the judge dismissed Reed's case as chaotic, despite being a solicitor, and though in Small Track awarded Boswell £17,500 in costs.

Your second point however is wrong, it's not only if you lose. There have been cases where someone has technically won their case but the judge has deemed the case was vexatious or frivolous and so awarded costs to the "guilty" defendant despite them winning. A quick google doesnt bring it up but but there was a case a few years ago where they were claiming under £10, memory says under £5, in which they won their case but the judge was unimpressed with the courts time being take up with such a tiny amount and the costs awarded to the defendant were vastly greater than those to the claimant.