Refund refused due to excessive wear

Pippa11

He relied on their returns policy and my emails to them haven’t stated explicitly that he was exercising his right 😒

saajan_12

Pippa11 said:

No and I pointed this out to them! A quote from their last email is: 
“ we will simply not be able to accept the climbing shoes as a return and will have to action them to be shipped back to you as we cannot re-sell the items. As per our terms and conditions we cannot accept items that have clear wear in any form as we do not sell used goods. This means the items will have to be returned to you to sell on privately if you so desire.”

They might have to get into the business of selling used goods! 

Having had such shoes, those letterings must be made from the thinnest of paint films, seem to come off just by rubbing too hard against the other shoe or inside a bag let alone acutally climbing. What they show is akin to the handling that could have happened in a store, which you're allowed to do at home. 

Okell

Go back and tell them that that is what he was doing - and thought it was obvious he was exercising his statutory right to cancel!

But before you do that...

I'm not convinced that their T&Cs comply with the requirements of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 - which basically say that online sellers have to make prospective consumers aware of their right to cancel and how to exercise it.

If online sellers do not comply with those requirements then (1) the cancellation period is extended by up to a year and (2) sellers are not permiited to pay anything less than a full refund.

Before you do anything else wait and see what others think.

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head is more knowledgeable than me on this point

Pippa11

Latest reply from them: 

Cancellation of an order can only be applied to an order that has not been accepted, for example if the goods arrived to you in a state that was unacceptable or used then you would have a right to cancel the order to initiate a refund. If the shoes arrived in that state as you say, why did you not contact us? 

Please see section 29 clauses 34(9) C and 35(5)D of the Consumer Contract that you linked above. 

Right to cancel

29.—(1) The consumer may cancel a distance or off-premises contract at any time in the cancellation period without giving any reason, and without incurring any liability except under these provisions—

(a)

regulation 34(3) (where enhanced delivery chosen by consumer);

(b)

regulation 34(9) (where value of goods diminished by consumer handling);

(c)

regulation 35(5) (where goods returned by consumer);

(d)

regulation 36(4) (where consumer requests early supply of service).

As your handling of the goods has made them a used item and no longer re-sellable we do not have to accept them back. You have also returned the goods which means you accepted them at the point of delivery, if they were not satisfactory at the point of delivery you could have contacted us and we would've arranged for the items to be returned under a full refund on verification of their condition. As the shoes have chalk on them and wear on the sole unit, this is clear evidence that the shoes have been used and they would not have been sent out in that condition as we do not allow the use of chalk in the showroom and they would not have cleared our returns inspection if they had been tried on previously. 

Please confirm the return address as we will not accept this return.

eskbanker

They're misrepresenting the CCRs - the clauses they've highlighted are where there can be a charge, not reasons to refuse the cancellation entirely!

Pippa11

I notice the CCRs under 34(9) say they can recover the amount from the consumer up to the contract price - how is it determined how much is reasonable? Could they just say they were deducting the full price? 

eskbanker

Pippa11 said:

I notice the CCRs under 34(9) say they can recover the amount from the consumer up to the contract price - how is it determined how much is reasonable? Could they just say they were deducting the full price? 

Theoretically the deductions can be 100% but there isn't really a mechanism to determine what's reasonable beyond doing so in court - however, in your case it's unthinkable that any independent scrutiny would conclude that a 100% deduction would be appropriate!

Pippa11

I also note it says paragraph 9 does not apply if they have not provided information on the right to cancel - I can’t see this stated  in their returns info page, does this mean that para 9 therefore does not apply? Or am I missing it? (Not allowed to post a link) 

swingaloo

Playing devils advocate here  but if you look at those shoes on the website and compare the photos of new ones to the photo you have posted you can see a big difference. 
They do look used so if it were me I would be getting them back and selling them on as that may recoup as much as they would offer you were they to agree a partial refund.

Ergates

Pippa11 said:

I notice the CCRs under 34(9) say they can recover the amount from the consumer up to the contract price - how is it determined how much is reasonable? Could they just say they were deducting the full price? 

Courts generally work on the "what would a reasonable person think?" - in terms of a reasonable deduction it's in terms of "If we're selling the items as they are now, how much of a discount would we need to offer".

Like other posters, I don't believe a 100% deduction is at all reasonable.   maybe 10-15% might be.