Shop claimed the item was damaged after 14 day return.
Options
markluke123
Posts: 4 Newbie
We purcahsed an item online from a shop and took out online finance which was advertised on their site. We decided that the item was not really what we wanted after all and returned it unopened and un altered within 14 days. On receiving the goods we noted that the packaging look insufficient for the item in question wich was an intergrated amplifier for a stereo system.
To return the goods, we had to arrange and pay for a courier as per the shops policy. On receiving the returned amp, the shop claimed that it would not power up and that they would not refund the money. They seem to be giving every excuse to avoid it. This has left us in a difficult position as technically we have an outstanding loan debt and no refund.
We do not think the shop is acting reasonably as they would surely need to prove that the item worked before they sent it. Also, since we were entitled to return the item within 14 days as a distant purchace, we were not obliged to check the item on receipt or bare any responsibility for the packaging in which it was originally sent. We have informed The Financial Ombudsman service but would really like some advise as to the behaviour of the retailer in question.
To return the goods, we had to arrange and pay for a courier as per the shops policy. On receiving the returned amp, the shop claimed that it would not power up and that they would not refund the money. They seem to be giving every excuse to avoid it. This has left us in a difficult position as technically we have an outstanding loan debt and no refund.
We do not think the shop is acting reasonably as they would surely need to prove that the item worked before they sent it. Also, since we were entitled to return the item within 14 days as a distant purchace, we were not obliged to check the item on receipt or bare any responsibility for the packaging in which it was originally sent. We have informed The Financial Ombudsman service but would really like some advise as to the behaviour of the retailer in question.
0
Comments
-
Your problem is you thought the packaging looked bad and so it could have been damaged yet ignored this and sent it back as a change of mind return.
As such they were expecting an item with no issues and think you are trying it on.
Why would you do such a thing? They may be acting bad, but you acted worse and seem like a child tantruming by saying you were not obliged to check.
You brought this on yourself by acting stupid.0 -
Your problem is you thought the packaging looked bad and so it could have been damaged yet ignored this and sent it back as a change of mind return.
As such they were expecting an item with no issues and think you are trying it on.
Why would you do such a thing? They may be acting bad, but you acted worse and seem like a child tantruming by saying you were not obliged to check.
You brought this on yourself by acting stupid.
Is it really neccessary to be quite so rude?All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.0 -
The packaging did not appear damaged but had no fragile stickers and a thin layer of bubble wrap. Our return of the item had nothing to do with the packaging.
We simply returned it as it had been sent. If the shop deemed the packaging adequate, why would we repackage it? That makes no sense.
How can a shop prove it worked before it was sent?0 -
markluke123 wrote: »The packaging did not appear damaged but had no fragile stickers and a thin layer of bubble wrap. Our return of the item had nothing to do with the packaging.
Well that is different then, But you obviously though it enough of an issue to mention it here, so why would you not mention it to them?markluke123 wrote: »We simply returned it as it had been sent. If the shop deemed the packaging adequate, why would we repackage it? That makes no sense.
More excuses? If you thought it unsuitable why would you not repackage it and bring it to the shops attention? It makes perfect sense, just because someone else thinks it good enough does not mean you should.markluke123 wrote: »How can a shop prove it worked before it was sent?
How can you proove it did not?
The questions to think about are. How long did you take to tell them it was sent back. If more than a day they would expect you to have looked at it. Why did you send back in packaging you deemed inadiquate? Maybe some new employee wrapepd it and has now been fired? And if you thoguht the packaging was bad why did you not tell them in order to cover yourself for the exact situation that has arisen?
You should still get your money back but you have not in anyway made it easy for yourself. If you are saying the same sort of thing to the company rather than being open you may not, still always small claims.0 -
The point is that the seller surely has the burden of proof for the condition of the item when sent not the buyer.
We had 14 days to inform of a return. The packaging did not look damaged. We merely expressed an opinion that we thought the packaging should be better, based on previous experience of similar packaged items.
The shop claim that the packaging was adequate as per courier guidelines. Either it was or it was not. They can't have it both ways.0 -
markluke123 wrote: »The point is that the seller surely has the burden of proof for the condition of the item when sent not the buyer.
We had 14 days to inform of a return. The packaging did not look damaged. We merely expressed an opinion that we thought the packaging should be better, based on previous experience of similar packaged items.
The shop claim that the packaging was adequate as per courier guidelines. Either it was or it was not. They can't have it both ways.
The issues are that you chose not to test the item on receipt. You then chose to return it as per your rights under CCCR; cancelling as not suitable. It is then up to you to return the item to the seller (assuming they complied with CCCR) and that included using a courier and packaging that would protect it. It was down to you to ensure it got there in one piece.0 -
We returned the package exactly as sent. The seller claims that the packaging was within the guidelines of their courier which was DPD.
We returned the package via The Post Office which has less specific guidelines. If the package was good enough on the outward journey then it was good enough to return.
There is nothing in the 14 day return laws that say that we have to repackage goods unless they have been opened for inspection in a way that could reduce the value. The package was not opened..
Secondly. It makes a mockery of the CRA if a seller could potentially send out an item that is broken before postage and then claim it is broken when returned. Any shop could claim that every time someone returned an item within 14 days because of a change of mind .
Surely the burden of proof is on the shop to show that it worked in the first place irrespective of packaging. Also.we had no choice but to organise and pay for a return to get our refund. The seller did not offer to organise the return. If the seller had requested an inspection or a repackage then we would have complied but we were obliged to do neither under the 14 day return rules.0 -
If you have a legitimate complaint and the retailer isn't helping, you should go to the lender before the ombudsman. Assuming the retailer/lender are different.
I would tend to agree with the others though, the retailer is right to assume it happened on the way back - and that is from your own version of events, I wonder what theirs is?
The only strange thing here is no mention of actual damage, or is that just missing from the details here?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards