Builder Depot refusing return under Consumer Contracts Regulations — advice needed

namsoni

Hi all,

I’d appreciate some advice on a return issue I’m having with Builder Depot.

I ordered a fridge freezer from their website on behalf of my elderly parents. The unit was delivered on 18 July 2025, and I submitted a return request on 29 July — well within the 14-day cooling-off period allowed under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

The fridge freezer is unused, uninstalled, and in perfect condition. It was only unpacked to assess suitability, which the regulations allow as part of reasonable inspection — just like you'd do in a shop. Some of the outer packaging (specifically the polystyrene base) had collapsed on delivery and was disposed of. Everything else is intact.

Builder Depot is now refusing to accept the return. They’ve said:

• The supplier has rejected it as "not in resaleable condition" due to missing packaging.
• I didn’t report the packaging damage within 48 hours (even though this isn't a damage claim).
• I need to contact the "tender" used at the time of ordering (this makes no sense — it was a standard online consumer purchase).

I’ve pushed back citing the Consumer Contracts Regulations, including:

• The 14-day right to cancel for any reason.
• No legal requirement to return goods in original packaging.
• Their own T&Cs saying deductions can only apply for handling beyond what’s needed to inspect (but they are not even suggesting a deduction)
• The fact the contract is with Builder Depot Ltd, not the supplier.

Despite this, they’ve doubled down and say they’re not able to help further.

Does anyone have experience with this, or advice on how best to proceed? I'm considering a Section 75 chargeback, a complaint via Citizens Advice/Trading Standards, and ultimately small claims court if needed.

Thanks in advance — any input welcome!

MyRealNameToo

namsoni said:

Does anyone have experience with this, or advice on how best to proceed? I'm considering a Section 75 chargeback, a complaint via Citizens Advice/Trading Standards, and ultimately small claims court if needed.

Chargeback and S75 are two different things. For the former you would have to have returned the goods before you could make a chargeback. 


They have B2C sales terms on their website which at a quick glance does appear to be inline with legislation. They should accept the return but then potentially argue over deductions from excess handling. 

Why did you dispose of the packaging before deciding if it was the right item for you?

eskbanker

namsoni said:

I ordered a fridge freezer from their website on behalf of my elderly parents. 

[...]

I'm considering a Section 75 chargeback, a complaint via Citizens Advice/Trading Standards, and ultimately small claims court if needed.

These are actually two entirely separate processes, and it's not necessarily a given that either would apply here.

Section 75 is dependent on an unbroken debtor-creditor-supplier chain, which will generally prevent claims where the purchase is for someone other than the primary cardholder, although this will depend on exactly how the contract is structured, in terms of whose name is on the order, etc.

Unlike s75, chargeback isn't a statutory right and so doesn't apply to all breaches of contract, but only in specific cases defined by the card schemes, such as non-delivery or faulty goods - I don't know if there's a reason code that corresponds to this particular scenario of failing to accept a return though.

Okell

@namsoni -  When exercising your right to cancel a distance contract under the Regulations, you are meant to clearly tell the trader that you are cancelling the contract.  Did you do so?

Assuming you did the trader cannot refuse to accept your cancellation.  The best they can do is to argue that your "handling" of the goods has diminished their value, and reduce your refund accordingly.  I doubt they could validly argue that your tossing of the packaging has made it unsellable and reduced its value to zero

Exodi

I cannot see the communication that has happened between you both, but exercising a 'change of mind' return under the CCR would be at your cost (unless they choose to offer a free collection). I only mention it because it's very common for consumers to expect free returns shipping, even for change of mind returns, when there is no statutory right to. It may potentially be the reason for the current impasse.

I do not think it would be unreasonable for them to suggest a deduction due to the missing packaging. You are right there's no legal requirement to return goods in the original packaging, however the merchant is entitled to make a deduction in reflection of any potential reduction of resale value. In the ideal case, an item would be returned which has been carefully opened and resealed that may be indistinguishable from a new item, so might suffer no potential loss in resale value.

With those two points above, I agree with you that if the trader is outright refusing to accept the goods, they are in breach of the CCR (though I'm not sure of what you'd achieve with a S75 or Chargeback - mainly because you still have the goods and they are not faulty).

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Too lazy to look but if the trader doesn’t notify of the cost of return for goods which can’t be returned via normal post the trader is to bear the cost of return.

Deduction is only permissible for handling which goes beyond what is necessary to establish the nature and characteristics of the goods, I fail to see how that it possible in this case without removing the packaging and, based on the EU guidance, find it hard to believe a deduction would be permissible here.

Equally if the trader hasn’t provided the correct information regarding the right to cancel a deduction is not permitted in any event (and the cancellation period is extended to 1 year and 14 days). 

OP post above is correct regarding a clear statement, did you do so?

If not I’ll be less lazy and double check their terms for information compliance.

Exodi

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Too lazy to look but if the trader doesn’t notify of the cost of return for goods which can’t be returned via normal post the trader is to bear the cost of return.

If you get a minute, could you share the source for this. I've read the CCR a few times (particularly s35 in relation to return costs) in the past and don't remember this detail, except for off-premise sales (separate from distance sales/online).

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Deduction is only permissible for handling which goes beyond what is necessary to establish the nature and characteristics of the goods, I fail to see how that it possible in this case without removing the packaging and, based on the EU guidance, find it hard to believe a deduction would be permissible here.

I don't think anyone suggested that consumers couldn't open the box to inspect the product? Nor that opening the box should automatically cause a deduction to be made?

To look at it a different way:

Do you think there should be any difference in outcome between a consumer ripping apart a cardboard box to open a product and one that cuts the tape along the flaps so the package can potentially be resealed and resold as new?

Adding to that and pertinent to the OP's situation - what about for discarding the packaging? Is it your view that the condition or presence of the original packaging is irrelevant, so long as the item is appropriately packaged for return?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Equally if the trader hasn’t provided the correct information regarding the right to cancel a deduction is not permitted in any event (and the cancellation period is extended to 1 year and 14 days). 

OP post above is correct regarding a clear statement, did you do so?

If not I’ll be less lazy and double check their terms for information compliance.

Agree with these points.

The above two questions aren't met as 'gotcha' questions - I'm always keen to learn if there are things I didn't know about.

namsoni

Yes, we made it absolutely clear in our first message to Builder Depot that we were exercising our legal right to cancel under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 — within 14 days of delivery. So this isn’t a discretionary ‘change of mind’ request under their store policy. The fridge freezer is unused, uninstalled, and in perfect working condition. The only issue is that some of the packaging (the polystyrene base) was damaged in transit and discarded. We didn’t treat this as a damage claim, but simply noted that the item had been unpacked to inspect its suitability. I’ve since confirmed that this packaging damage was in fact noted in writing at the time of delivery by my dad to the delivery driver. 

Despite this, Builder Depot are outright refusing the return. They haven't suggested a deduction, asked for return shipping, or even acknowledged the CCR at all. Instead, they keep citing an unrelated clause from their voluntary returns policy (which requires goods to be unopened and in full packaging), and bizarrely told me to escalate the issue via the “tender used at the time of order” — which, after clarification, turns out to mean “my bank.” They are insisting that the lack of packaging and not reporting it within 48 hours invalidates the return, even though from my perspective this isn't a damage claim and has nothing to do with resale value of the item itself. On request we provided photos of the fridge freezer and they've made no reference to those or any damage they perceive on the item. 

Given that are outright refusing to take the item back, can I still pursue things via my bank?

Okell

namsoni said:

Yes, we made it absolutely clear in our first message to Builder Depot that we were exercising our legal right to cancel under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 — within 14 days of delivery. So this isn’t a discretionary ‘change of mind’ request under their store policy...

... Despite this, Builder Depot are outright refusing the return. They haven't suggested a deduction, asked for return shipping, or even acknowledged the CCR at all. Instead, they keep citing an unrelated clause from their voluntary returns policy (which requires goods to be unopened and in full packaging)...

We see a lot of threads where consumers are exercising their statutory right to cancel but traders keep trying to treat the return as one under their own returns policy.

I would reiterate to them that you are exercising your right to cancel under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and that you are NOT trying to return it under there own returns policy - in which case the T&Cs of that returns policy are not applicable here.

The more you can demonstrate that you've tried to be reasonable in sorting it out with the trader, the easier it's likely to be to make a chargeback or s75 claim

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Exodi said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Too lazy to look but if the trader doesn’t notify of the cost of return for goods which can’t be returned via normal post the trader is to bear the cost of return.

If you get a minute, could you share the source for this. I've read the CCR a few times (particularly s35 in relation to return costs) in the past and don't remember this detail, except for off-premise sales (separate from distance sales/online).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/35

(5) The consumer must bear the direct cost of returning goods under paragraph (2), unless—

(a)the trader has agreed to bear those costs, or

(b)the trader failed to provide the consumer with the information about the consumer bearing those costs, required by paragraph (m) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

where applicable, that the consumer will have to bear the cost of returning the goods in case of cancellation and, for distance contracts, if the goods, by their nature, cannot normally be returned by post, the cost of returning the goods;

Exodi said:

I don't think anyone suggested that consumers couldn't open the box to inspect the product? Nor that opening the box should automatically cause a deduction to be made?

To look at it a different way:

Do you think there should be any difference in outcome between a consumer ripping apart a cardboard box to open a product and one that cuts the tape along the flaps so the package can potentially be resealed and resold as new?

Adding to that and pertinent to the OP's situation - what about for discarding the packaging? Is it your view that the condition or presence of the original packaging is irrelevant, so long as the item is appropriately packaged for return?

It's very subjective, IMO if you purchase say a toy then the box forms part of the product and damaging/disposing of the box could be diminished value due to excessive handling. 

The white goods I've had delivered tend to be packaged in polystyrene and shrink-wrapped, obviously a consumer can't shrink--wrap a fridge back up so I think disposing of that is reasonable. 

In terms of the polystyrene or a box, OP needs to return the goods and needs to package them sufficiently, I think 99.9% of people having a fridge delivered aren't going to notice how it is packaged, only whether it is damaged due to a lack of packaging, I just don't see the justification in this instance. 

Exodi said:

The above two questions aren't met as 'gotcha' questions - I'm always keen to learn if there are things I didn't know about.

Ask away Always good to have a rebuttal, I'm far from infallible! 

OP just add to my point above about returning, unless the T&Cs state they will collect in the event of cancellation you now have the obligation to return the goods within 14 days of letting them know you cancelling. 

There is no need to ask/wait for permission, in fact the opposite as AFAIK if the consumer doesn't return the goods within 14 days that is the end of their opportunity to cancel. 

If you paid with a credit card (and over £100) then Section 75 will cover you, if you paid with a debit card there isn't a chargeback right for change of mind. 

If you return and they refuse delivery or return the fridge to you you are an involuntarily bailee, the goods won't be yours and you just have to take care of them.

If you become an involuntarily bailee or the company keeps the return but doesn't refund then it's a case of letter before action followed by small claims. 

Assuming this website:

https://www.builderdepot.co.uk/b2c-terms-and-conditions

T&Cs for consumer's are largely correct (appear to be missing cost of return) and require the consumer to return the goods so biggest issue here how you are going to do that?

If you are able to then return the goods and argue about the refund once they have them back (and post back for more advice if needed ) . 

Okell

Exodi said:

... Do you think there should be any difference in outcome between a consumer ripping apart a cardboard box to open a product and one that cuts the tape along the flaps so the package can potentially be resealed and resold as new?

Adding to that and pertinent to the OP's situation - what about for discarding the packaging? Is it your view that the condition or presence of the original packaging is irrelevant, so long as the item is appropriately packaged for return?...

Isn't the only relevant question how far the value of the goods have been diminished?

I could accept that the more the original packaging has been damaged - or even discarded - then the the greater the possible dimunition in value, but I would find it very hard to accept the argument that the loss of even all of the packaging would reduce a fridge's value to nothing - which is what Builder Depot are trying to do here by saying the fridge is unsellable.

It's simply not credible to claim the fridge has no inherent resale value.


[Edit:  Addition of "possible" in second paragraph]