Flannels refusing refund for coat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

We will refund you (or will arrange a refund on our behalf) in full for any items you return but will deduct from any reimbursement an amount equal to any diminishment in value of the items as a result of you handling the items beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the items.

So even by their own policy they can't point black refuse a return (unless the item was trashed beyond any value which the what is described above is not). 

The retailer seems to be covering the statutory rights, even if there is some clumsy wording.

Given that a deduction for diminished value is permitted, a coat reportedly with "an odour and staining on the collar" would not be one that can be sold via retail channels, not even as 'seconds'.  A retailer won't be sending the coat to the dry cleaners.  This coat, once received back at the retailer and not saleable will have a cost for managing and disposal.  It may be that the retailer's assessment of "diminished value" is 100% and, if that is the assessment, sending the jacket back to the customer to do with as the customer pleases might make sense.

To be frank, that is their problem, diminished value is the cost of restoring the goods, not bothering and claiming 100% wouldn’t be acceptable.

Grumpy_chap

Would dry cleaning restore a coat with noticeable odour plus stained collar to a state that is suitable for retail?
In my experience, those are difficult to eliminate.

Ergates

Grumpy_chap said:

Would dry cleaning restore a coat with noticeable odour plus stained collar to a state that is suitable for retail?
In my experience, those are difficult to eliminate.

Given how people throw a fit at the merest suggestion that someone might have previously taken their new TV out of a box and looked at it for 5 minutes, I suspect not.

Undervalued

Ergates said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Would dry cleaning restore a coat with noticeable odour plus stained collar to a state that is suitable for retail?
In my experience, those are difficult to eliminate.

Given how people throw a fit at the merest suggestion that someone might have previously taken their new TV out of a box and looked at it for 5 minutes, I suspect not.

Indeed. However that is far easier for the seller to quantify as a TV's firmware / engineer's menu will log exactly how long the TV has been used. Obviously mechanical damage / soiling is harder to quantify.

High end photographic dealers used to suffer badly from this problem with "change of mind" returns on expensive lenses (often costing thousands of £s). Effectively they were being "hired" for an airshow or whatever then returned the following week. These days most lenses are electronically controlled and have their own firmware which can prove how much it has been used.

This certainly happens with mid to high end fashion items too. I am not suggesting for one moment that this is what the OP has done in this case. I am merely explaining why it is understandable that retailers will want to police this as far as possible.

If a £460 coat is now in the condition the seller claims (however that came about) it will have virtually no value. With a similar situation with a TV or camera lens it will still have a significant value as shop soiled / ex demo, maybe up to 80% of the new price.

KMacc

Alderbank said:

Undervalued said:

KMacc said:

Okell said:

When was it originally delivered to you?

When did you return it?

It was delivered on 13th September, and I returned it 7th October.

Having it for over three weeks would naturally make them suspicious about "This coat was tried on once and put back in its original packaging". Which is unfortunate if true.

If £4.99 makes it "a tight month" then was buying a £460 coat on credit the wisest move?

OK, it may be that this coat had been out and returned before and you didn't notice the problem they claim is now present but I can understand them looking very closely.

 

That's a very helpful post.

I wonder if this is the same jacket?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81272017#Comment_81272017?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=flannels

Earlier this year the OP bought a £500 coat from Flannels and returned it because it didn't fit. Flannels refused to accept it, saying it had clearly been worn.

I saw this post and it made me wonder. The coat was even similarly priced. I’m told it’s on its way back to me so I’m interested to see what it looks like given they say it has staining on the collar/odour. 

I also asked them about the state of the packaging and the condition of it upon receipt as last month I had Royal Mail send me back packaging only from a return I made to a retailer, with a note saying that they had damaged the item and I could claim money back. It’s odd because I got the refund for the clothing but have no idea how just the packing got into their hands to be sent back to me. Anyway, it makes me suspicious as to RM’s handling of packages and whether my coat could have been mishandled on its trip to Flannels.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

If a £460 coat is now in the condition the seller claims (however that came about) it will have virtually no value. 

The irony of such a comment on a site about money saving! 

A odour could be anything, if they are taking hydrogen sulphide that's a bit different to perfume (which could equally transfer to a coat from trying it on in a shop). 

I can't envisage what the stain is but I'm guessing it's not engine oil. 

Yet another thread on here where great lengths are gone to to tell the OP why they should walk away from £500 rather than telling the OP to ask for proof of the damage and request a refund in accordance with their rights (or perhaps this case the company's return policy). 

Undervalued

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

If a £460 coat is now in the condition the seller claims (however that came about) it will have virtually no value. 

The irony of such a comment on a site about money saving! 

A odour could be anything, if they are taking hydrogen sulphide that's a bit different to perfume (which could equally transfer to a coat from trying it on in a shop). 

I can't envisage what the stain is but I'm guessing it's not engine oil. 

Yet another thread on here where great lengths are gone to to tell the OP why they should walk away from £500 rather than telling the OP to ask for proof of the damage and request a refund in accordance with their rights (or perhaps this case the company's return policy). 

As the coat is on its way back to the OP she will soon have the option of inspecting and sniffing the alleged soiling / odour and maybe get an expert opinion on it.

Obviously that doesn't explain how it came to be like that.

If it ends up in the small claims court a judge will have to decide, on the balance of probabilities, who to believe and if that is the retailer what reduction in value to apply.

born_again

Has Op deleted the account. As you get permission problem when viewing profile. Which usually refers to banned or deleted acc?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

As the coat is on its way back to the OP she will soon have the option of inspecting and sniffing the alleged soiling / odour and maybe get an expert opinion on it.

Obviously that doesn't explain how it came to be like that.

If it ends up in the small claims court a judge will have to decide, on the balance of probabilities, who to believe and if that is the retailer what reduction in value to apply.

Going to be expense for Frasers..... 

OP if you are still hear and reading, their credit appears to be regulated, official complaints process is here:

https://cdn.tymit.com/media/Frasers_Plus_Complaints_Process_231024_b6fad8253a.pdf

I'd follow that noting you dispute the damage and even were that the case Flannels haven't acted in accordance with their terms to provide an appropriate refund.

sheramber

born_again said:

Has Op deleted the account. As you get permission problem when viewing profile. Which usually refers to banned or deleted acc?

Says profile is private.