Returned item to Victorian Plumbing and was destroyed

Boohoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82189086#Comment_82189086

It would appear so.

The keeping of "damaged in transit goods" by VP and not returning/refunding them must be legal as I haven't seen many posters on here , LegalBeagles or a few other sites that have said they have got there money back or the damaged items back.

I did ask last week about if it's possible to get any data from a photo that was sent to the OP so they could see what day and time it was taken to see if it was their item returned it nobody answered it.

ThumbRemote

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82189196#Comment_82189196

"Must be legal" is one heck of a jump there.

Boohoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82189314#Comment_82189314

Do you know if it's against the law, consumer or other to keep items that have been returned and no money is refunded to the customer?

If so please tell us all as in my post I haven't seen any one that has been reimbursed after returning items and been told it's damaged and you aren't entitled to a refund.

If VP have been doing this for years and haven't been forced to change that's why I asked if it was legal.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82189196#Comment_82189196

I wonder if there is an exception in law that allows goods received back "damaged in transit" or "damaged by customer" not to be refunded?

I typed that to show the unfairness if the retailer had no redress if they just received back a pile of broken porcelain.

In doing so, I recalled that the standard consumer rights return rules allow a deduction from refund for handling beyond that a consumer could do in a physical store.

That must be what is being relied upon.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82189700#Comment_82189700

I would assume it's a civil rather than criminal matter and covered by the Torts (Interference with goods) Act

I suspect lots of people just give up and those who succeed don't always come back to say so.

Or maybe VP impose a NDA

Boohoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82189762#Comment_82189762

Thanks for explaining.

JellyFeesh

@MyRealNameToo

Even if this is their standard op procedures, is it legal?

JellyFeesh

@benn1

How did your claim for refund from Vict Plumbing go? I am having exactly the same problem.

Do you still have the photos of the 'damage" they alleged? Can you post it?

Many thanks

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82190045#Comment_82190045

I wasnt opining on the legality of it, just commenting that on the person who said its an amazing coincidence which it doesnt appear to be, its just their SOP as we've had many threads on the same.

Its unlikely to be "illegal", which would imply a criminal act. It may well be unlawful and so a civil matter. If they have rejected the return then the OP still holds the title of the goods and therefore its not VC's to destroy. Im not convinced they are an involuntary bailee as others have suggested as they agreed to have the goods sent to them and so they would have a higher duty of care.

If the OP were to claim on Parcel Force and the claim was accepted in full then they have no loss so whilst VC shouldnt have done it they'd have no claim. They could claim against VC for the destruction of their goods but their claim there is for the value of the damaged second hand item.

The grey area is if they have a right for a full refund under the CCR, the CCR only allows discounting for excessive handling by the customer. There is certainly an argument that damage caused by the courier is not excessive handling by the customer and therefore cannot give rise to a deduction.

Obviously the OP cannot double dip, they cannot claim from both VC and PF as that would be undue enrichment but again unlawful rather than illegal.

That said, its understandable that VC doesnt want to sit on a mountain of damaged goods awaiting customer agreement that they are to be destroyed or for the customer to arrange a courier for their collection. Most presumably do claim off of the courier and so ultimately dont suffer a loss unless the courier doesnt accept the evidence or thinks the proper resolution would be the repair of the item rather than writing it off.