Exclusive Lighting Ltd – Refusing lawful returns & charging 50% "penalties" under Consumer Contracts

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82157424#Comment_82157424

Restocking fees aren't permitted.

You may argue that (which you quoted) is what they meant but were that the case the following sentence in their terms wouldn't be needed:

If products have been installed, there could be a deduction to the refund to reflect the loss of the products value.

Also the use of the word "must" is misleading and the requirements about the packaging are excessive

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021XC1229%2804%29&qid=1640961745514

In principle, the consumer should be able to open the packaging to access the content(s) inside if similar goods are normally displayed in shops in unpacked condition. Hence, damage caused to the packaging by merely opening it is not a cause for compensation.

They have poorly worded their terms against the consumer's rights and lost the right to impose a reduction.

I also can not see any court is going to penalise the consumer over the colour of tape they happen to have to reseal the box, it's nonsense.

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82157431#Comment_82157431

You may be right, maybe not - I don't think a court would think any of those terms are excessive or invalidate their right to reclaim costs under the ccr. But we'll probably never know unless someone takes them to court.

What I think we probably can agree on is that damage caused by installing the lights would trigger a reduction in the refund (ignoring the argument about their right to reclaim it).

MarvinDay

As it's an electrical item, would the retailer be legally entitled to include the cost of inspecting and possibly testing the light to ensure that it's safe to resell it as part of the deduction?