Charged for cosmetic scratch on returned item

HungryHippos

HungryHippos

HungryHippos

Soldato
Joined
25 Mar 2004
Posts
16,008
Location
Fareham
Afternoon, good citizens of OCUK.

I bought a laptop, and after some deliberation decided to return it for a refund. I wasn't happy with the backlight bleed on it or the motion blur I was seeing, I returned it within 14 days of owning it (distance selling act).

I was charged £35 for the return collection etc, which is in the terms and conditions, that's fine and I have to eat that cost.

But they also want to charge me for a cosmetic scratch, they state that the casing needs to be replaced, which will be an extra £30 taken out of my refund.

Picture of said scratch is below in the spoiler tags:

nguCtC3h.jpg

Should I argue this, or just accept it?

I don't remember scratching it, I can't prove it wasn't me, but neither can they prove that it wasn't sent to me with this scratch, or can they?

Note: This is not an OCUK purchase.
 
Last edited:
Suck it up and move on, they'll easily be able to argue that every item is quality checked etc.
 
Bunka said:
Suck it up and move on, they'll easily be able to argue that every item is quality checked etc.
Click to expand...
This tbh. If you'd returned it because it was scratched you'd probably be fine, but because you've not noticed it, or noted it with them before, you'd have a hard time proving it was there when you got it.
 
yea, as you have returned it for different reasons and not advised them the scratch was there on arrival I can't see anyway round the £30 charge.
 
Wow that is tiny!

Unfortunately they are probably within their rights though :(

Also it's the Consumer Contracts Regulations now, DSR has been replaced since 2014. under DSR you could do pretty much anything to it according to the law but the CCR has changed that a bit to allow sellers to charge if goods haven't been handled carefully before return.
 
chanjy said:
Wow that is tiny!

Unfortunately they are probably within their rights though :(

Also it's the Consumer Contracts Regulations now, DSR has been replaced since 2014. under DSR you could do pretty much anything to it according to the law but the CCR has changed that a bit to allow sellers to charge if goods haven't been handled carefully before return.
Click to expand...

which is more orientated to the seller these days.
 
Aye, I did treat it carefully, and it may well have been there before I got it, but it's not something I saw or noticed tbh.

If it was in a prominent place I probably would have seen it!

Sounds like I gotta pay for it, sucks, I mean if I did it and knew I did it then fair enough, but I have no idea how it got there. :(
 
Eulogy said:
Afternoon, good citizens of OCUK.

I bought a laptop, and after some deliberation decided to return it for a refund. I wasn't happy with the backlight bleed on it or the motion blur I was seeing, I returned it within 14 days of owning it (distance selling act).

I was charged £35 for the return collection etc, which is in the terms and conditions, that's fine and I have to eat that cost.

But they also want to charge me for a cosmetic scratch, they state that the casing needs to be replaced, which will be an extra £30 taken out of my refund.

Picture of said scratch is below in the spoiler tags:

nguCtC3h.jpg

Should I argue this, or just accept it?

I don't remember scratching it, I can't prove it wasn't me, but neither can they prove that it wasn't sent to me with this scratch, or can they?

Note: This is not an OCUK purchase.
Click to expand...
If there's a fault they can not charge you £35 pounds, they have to have proof that you scratched it, and something like that could have been done when it was taken out of the case, etc...
 
Question is whether it's worth arguing the toss for ages over £30.

They'll likely be much better placed to put the user at fault than the other way round.
 
Jim99 said:
Question is whether it's worth arguing the toss for ages over £30.

They'll likely be much better placed to put the user at fault than the other way round.
Click to expand...

Arguing for ages? no, maybe not. But if people just accept this kind of thing they will try it at least.

I will be the first to say that if I knowingly scratched it, then I should pay. But not doing so knowingly means I am not certain it wasn't like this from the start.

Wondering if I should at least try to argue it a little, will only cost me a bit of time :)

Majority opinion so far is to just accept it and move on though.
 
Eulogy said:
Arguing for ages? no, maybe not. But if people just accept this kind of thing they will try it at least.

I will be the first to say that if I knowingly scratched it, then I should pay. But not doing so knowingly means I am not certain it wasn't like this from the start.

Wondering if I should at least try to argue it a little, will only cost me a bit of time :)

Majority opinion so far is to just accept it and move on though.
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to argue, absolutely.

But I'd be very surprised if you'd get anywhere, unless you had your own photographs of the item before you returned it. On that note, after many issues with another UK component retailer (not OcUK) I have decided never to return anything without photos. But that's just after my experience.

I guess the point is, by all means go for it, but don't expect any results, and maybe it's worth mentally writing it off.

Ultimately, unless you get into a courtroom they don't have to do a thing. And even if you did get that far, you don't have any evidence to suggest that it isn't your fault.
 
Why would you argue?

There was no fault, it just didn't meet your standards. Do you think the retailer can now sell it as new if you have opened it and used it?

Legally the retailer can charge you for just opening it and using it. Why should they accept a loss just because a buyer changed their mind?
 
horrorwood said:
Why would you argue?

There was no fault, it just didn't meet your standards. Do you think the retailer can now sell it as new if you have opened it and used it?

Legally the retailer can charge you for just opening it and using it. Why should they accept a loss just because a buyer changed their mind?
Click to expand...

The thread is debating the fee levied for the scratch, not a fee levied for the return.
 
I don't think there's a lot you can do unless you can prove that it had that scratch at the point of sale, you could maybe try arguing that with them for a while and they might just decide they'd rather give you the £35 than waste employee time dealing with you.

You should really inspect stuff more thoroughly I'd have probably noticed a scratch like that 20secs after removing it from the box and then if you mention it was there to begin with they can't really blame you for it. If you've done it then just be more careful in the future until you're sure you're keeping something.
 
Last edited:
Backlight bleed is a fault... you should have been able to return it under this grounds free of charge, without that £35 fee.

As for the scratch, you could simply reply with the following:

"I did not damage the item, this scratch must have occurred when you removed it from packaging."

or similar...

or...

"Had the item not demonstrated unacceptable performance characteristics/faults, then I would have had no reason to return it"
 
lol Bob :P

I just laid out some facts, said I think backlight bleed was a fault even if they didn't (they said it was within tolerance from manufacturer).

I said if they continued to pursue me for the costs of replacing the case that I would consider it poor customer service and it would damage their brand in my eyes.

I understand the courier fees and have no problems with paying that, will see what they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom