I bought a low value item (£25) so no big deal if the whole thing goes south, but I am digging my heels in here... I purchased some slippers online from a UK-based shop but when they arrived (two weeks after ordering), it was clear that the UK shop was just a front for what is very cheap Chinese tat – (the parcel had international/Customs labelling on it) – the sort of crap that makes Primarni look class. The seller has, however, been responsive to my emails, saying I can have a second pair for free (why would I want two pairs of crap slippers) as the shipping costs they say I have to pay would be higher than the value of the slippers. I have questioned why I would have to ship to London (where their office is claimed to be) from Yorkshire and that, furthermore, they should pay the basic cost for return under UK Consumer Contracts Regulations.
At the end of the day I just want my £25 back or have fun in failing – over to you.
If they didn't offer free returns then it's correct that you'll have to return them at your cost, but why on earth would that be more than £25?
Hiya!
So, you're absolutely correct in that this is CCR. Under CCR you can reject goods bought unseen within 14 days of receipt and you do not need a reason beyond "I've changed my mind." You should expect a refund within 14 days of return.
Postage is sketchier. You should be refunded any outbound postage costs. If the company expects you to pay for return postage then that's totally allowed but critically this has to have been made obvious prior to purchase. If in the highly likely event that they didn't go "this is our returns policy" before you hit "buy" then they're on the back foot.
Contrary to this, buying from overseas gets messy fast. Legally a company selling into the UK has to abide by English law; however, enforcing that in territories which routinely sell counterfeit goods might be challenging. For the sake of £25 I'd probably be tempted to chance my arm in the first instance and then just stick them in a cupboard for an Uncle I didn't like next Christmas.
If they didn't offer free returns then it's correct that you'll have to return them at your cost, but why on earth would that be more than £25?
Also, this. You may - may - be on the hook for return postage as above, but they don't get to dictate terms here so long as the goods are returned in the condition they were received. A carrier bag and a 2nd class stamp isn't £25 and I'd hazard that a pair of crap slippers are unlikely to get damaged in transit.
And don't buy slippers from wish.com in future, lol
Also, this. You may - may - be on the hook for return postage as above, but they don't get to dictate terms here so long as the goods are returned in the condition they were received. A carrier bag and a 2nd class stamp isn't £25 and I'd hazard that a pair of crap slippers are unlikely to get damaged in transit.
Agreed – I have asked them why the shipping costs would be so much when they are a UK-based company. Their response was...
While we are a UK company, our products are fulfilled and dispatched from an international warehouse, which is why returns do not go to our London office and why return shipping costs can vary. We understand how this may have caused confusion, and we will be reviewing our communication around this to make it clearer for our customers.
I'm not sure I understand why you're returning them. Is there an issue with them, they're very different to what was advertised or that you were expecting something more?
You obviously have rights under all scenarios but if it's the latter then personally I'd suck it up as the downside of online purchasing and never purchase from them again. If I'd have wanted ease of complaint then I'd support my LSS (local slipper shop).
I'm not sure I understand why you're returning them. Is there an issue with them, they're very different to what was advertised or that you were expecting something more?
Online they look very plush and high quality. The reality is that they are cheap and nasty – whilst they look similar to the online images, they are not identical by any means. FWIW, they were chosen by my daughter as a gift for my wife's birthday so it wasn't my choice (I'd have just bought some from Next if it was me choosing them).
If you think they aren't playing by the rules in terms of returns; particularly if they don't offer you the opportunity to return yourself, and/or they didn't make clear you would have to return to somewhere outside the UK, then I would try a credit/debit card chargeback.
Sounds like dropshipping, I can see it becoming a more frequent issue in future. At least with Temu, Wish, Amazon etc. you know you're likely getting tat but dropshippers hide the source more
post up the link so we can assess how obvious it was that you'd be receiving Chinese tat 🤔 🤣
post up the link so we can assess how obvious it was that you'd be receiving Chinese tat
Ohh, go on then - have fun (in my defence, my daughter sent me the link and I purchased them in a bit of a rush – it's a Shopify shop so I had a bit of trust in it).
Reading the ‘Refund policy’ I would expect to make returns to the UK address.
The shipping policy makes it clear that they are a drop shipper but I would not expect you to read that to try to guess what the returns procedure is
Ohh, go on then - have fun
very sporting 😀
Reading the ‘Refund policy’ I would expect to make returns to the UK address.
Well, they make it very clear that the product will be shipped from outside of the UK, and if you really thought about it I guess you might conclude that it would need to be returned from whence it came, and not to their registered office/contact address...
They don't explicitly spell this out though (which they acknowledge in their reply above about making things clearer!)
Actually the thing that jumped out at me straight away was the "Gifts for mom" at the top - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all the featured reviews are from Americans. So it's obviously a cut-n-paste website which they've given a .co.uk address and GBP pricing to make it look like it's a UK company. That and the "free worldwide shipping" which is always a red flag. It's not a scam as such as you did receive a product, it's just that product is not worth nearly what they're charging!
While we are a UK company, our products are fulfilled and dispatched from an international warehouse, which is why returns do not go to our London office and why return shipping costs can vary. We understand how this may have caused confusion, and we will be reviewing our communication around this to make it clearer for our customers.
Right. So a) this is a "them" problem and b) they've just admitted that they didn't tell you.
It's not a scam as such as you did receive a product, it's just that product is not worth nearly what they're charging!
Yeah I agree – and they even offered to send a second pair of CrapSlippers(TM) as compensation.
Actually the thing that jumped out at me straight away was the "Gifts for mom" at the top - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all the featured reviews are from Americans. So it's obviously a cut-n-paste website which they've given a .co.uk address and GBP pricing to make it look like it's a UK company.
I know – I was in a rush, last-minute shopping just before going into a meeting. My daughter is usually very good at spotting this sort of stuff so I just trusted her judgement.
I'm not sure I understand why you're returning them.
It's not relevant. Under CRA you can return faulty goods, but under CCR you can return goods you simply don't want. It's consumer protection against, well, exactly this scenario. The OP has bought goods sight unseen and been disappointed.
They look amazing, and down from £50 too. I've just ordered a pair, how fast do they come?
I have questioned why I would have to ship to London (where their office is claimed to be) from Yorkshire and that, furthermore, they should pay the basic cost for return under UK Consumer Contracts Regulations.
I think this is the nub of the issue. SOME retailers will cover the cost of returns, but it's not legally required and usually suggests that the cost of returns is covered by higher prices elsewhere. If you ordered from a company that you thought were based in London and want to return it, then it's entirely acceptable that you would have to return it to London
SOME retailers will cover the cost of returns, but it's not legally required
This is 100% correct, but they are legally required to be upfront about it prior to purchase.
Actually the thing that jumped out at me straight away was the "Gifts for mom" at the top
Maybe the content writer is from Wolverhampton?
Bigger red flags include the Chinglish
How Long Doses delivery takes?
Shipping & Delivery Times are very important. We have a big quality check standard which sometimes creates longer processing and handling times.
and the London address is a WeWork hotdesking site.
I’d do a chargeback and report them to standards for misrepresentation and flouting CCR rules
It's not relevant.
Not relevant how? I was curious why the OP wanted to return and then if you'd continued to read I said
You obviously have rights under all scenarios
The OP has bought goods sight unseen and been disappointed.
Disappointed because the item was advertised as being something it wasn't or disappointed because the buyer didn't put the effort in to understand what they were buying?
I'm not talking the OP specifically here as only they know the detail but sadly the expectation that the retailler should always mop up the lack of effort by buyers compounds the growing attitude of the modern world of decisions with no-consequences and entitlement of always being right. In my opinion, CRA is often being misused to support incompetent buyers rather than protect against unscrupulous retailers.
You may disagree, it's not relevant, I'm always right. Society tells me so.
What is this 'satisfaction guarantee' that they speak of? Doesn't sound like there actually is one
In my opinion, CRA is often being misused to support incompetent buyers rather than protect against unscrupulous retailers.
It has nothing to do with CRA - it's CCR
the retailler should always mop up the lack of effort by buyers
If I had bought them for £4 from Shein, I wouldn't be wanting my money back as I would have expected something of low quality. However, they cost £25 so I had an expectation of receiving something of better quality – which the website very much suggests they would be. They look nothing like the photographs.
I'm not talking the OP specifically here as only they know the detail
Now clarified, thank you, but does not distract from my point on the CCR (as, contrary to what I said, I'm old enough to be able to recognise sometimes I'm not right! 😆 ).
Disappointed because the item was advertised as being something it wasn't or disappointed because the buyer didn't put the effort in to understand what they were buying?
It's not relevant because the OP DOES NOT NEED A REASON to return goods bought unseen.
sadly the expectation that the retailler should always
... obey the law?
In my opinion, CRA is often being misused
Your opinion is also irrelevant and it's it's CCR, not CRA.
What is this 'satisfaction guarantee' that they speak of?
Also irrelevant. Any guarantee is in addition to statutory rights, not instead of.
It's not relevant because the OP DOES NOT NEED A REASON to return goods bought unseen.
Again, read the rest and you'll see the point I'm making.
or don't.
Your words are irrelevant to my opinion as it's mine.
After all, we're talking slippers on a mountain biking forum.
The marketing is fantastic
”everyone deserves to experience the ultimate in comfort and style. Our mission is to honor and support all men and women on their daily adventures and important moments with our cloud-like slippers.
VALUES
Clouds Slides UK is more than just a brand; it's a community. We encourage everyone to live their lives with passion, purpose, and confidence. Our range of Clouds Slides™ is designed to provide unparalleled comfort, making every step a pleasure.
We advocate for living your best life and creating a positive impact in the world. At Clouds Slides UK, we believe in the power of feeling good about yourself, and our products reflect that belief.
VISION
Our customers are our top priority. We are committed to meeting and exceeding your expectations. Our dedicated Marketing Team stays ahead of the latest trends and collections to ensure you receive the best product possible. We're confident that you'll love your Clouds Slides™ and the exceptional comfort they bring to your life.”
Post up a pic of the ones you received just for laughs. Make them look as crap as possible obviously. 👍😎
Already said already
Indeed. I saw. Sorry.
Cross-posting happens when a) long posts take longer to write than short ones and, b) I open all the pages I want to read and then bugger off to do something else before getting around to reading them. Which I appreciate is my own fault.
Your words are irrelevant to my opinion as it's mine.
You're talking about opinions, I'm talking about statutory rights. Subtle difference there. If you think the law is wrong then write to your MP. Legislation cares not about "opinions."
But if it is opinions you seek, I could cry more about an online-only retailer being (unlawfully) pissy over postage costs on a pair of slippers when they're in competition with a bricks & mortar shop who is paying rent and employing staff.
But if it is opinions you seek, I could cry more about an online-only retailer
At no point did I excuse a bad retailer, you made that assumption.
It’s an imperfect world but a bad retailer doesn’t excuse a bad customer who wants all of the convenience and cost efficiency but accept no responsibility if they get it wrong or just changed their mind.
Customer returns are the most expensive supply chain for any retailer and for many it’s 30-40% of stock shipped out. Ultimately that means we all pay the price for the convenience of those customers incapable of making informed decisions that they would have to make in a bricks and mortar world.
As you’ve pointed out, it’s the law that a retailer must accept that return regardless of the reason, so it must be right … right? 🤔
I don't know what else to add. It's the law. 🤷♂️ It's in place to protect consumers from shoddy business practices and whether you or I think it's "right" is not a factor.
There is no "responsibility" on the customer at all here, the system is intended to allow you to buy say a pair of size 7 and a pair of size 8 shoes and return whichever don't fit because you couldn't try them on ahead of the sale. It would be absurd to go into a shop, try on a pair of shoes, go "actually, no thanks" and be met with "but you have to buy them now, you've tried them on, I had to go get them out of the box for you and everything!"
Returns may well be an expensive part of the supply chain for online retailers, I don't know figures and frankly I don't particularly care. That's the price they pay for the massive savings made by not requiring physical stores and if they haven't factored in the hit of returns whilst massively undercutting the high street then that's just a bad business model.
"I'm not shopping online, it's far too expensive, I'm going into town instead" said no-one ever. Poor old Amazon must be on its knees by now.
That's the price they pay for the massive savings made by not requiring physical stores
But many do have physical stores. Even more are operating out of their back room trying to establish a business they believe in and are passionate about. They are putting hours into trading on line as well as pop up shops, markets and festivals and anywhere else they can do business in a really tough trade. In these physical worlds, the customer has a responsibility to understand what they are buying before they pay.
Put that customer on an internet facing device and the law removes all obligations from the customer to make a considered purchase. The retailer has to stand the cost of processing the order, the effort of shipping and then handling the return, processing the refund, having stock back they believed they had sold, sometimes even getting a return damaged by the customer and having to decide whether it’s worth the effort of a dispute, all through no fault of their own.
.
It's the law. 🤷♂️
Again, that doesn’t mean it’s right in all circumstances and in my opinion supports a growing culture of lack of ownership of decisions and self entitlement.
I don't know what else to add.
You don't need to, your position is very clear that the law is the law and it’s there to protect us from those wishing to rip us off, I haven’t disputed that.
I’m merely highlighting a consideration and impact of the law that’s often missed. Last time I checked, the UK is still a country where such things can still be raised without ‘those who know the law’ telling a person their opinion is wrong.
Poor old Amazon must be on its knees by now.
Of course I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that you don’t buy anything more from Amazon that you do from the owner of your local retail park.
The law being discussed isn’t relevant to Amazon in their business model.
That's the price they pay for the massive savings made by not requiring physical stores
But many do have physical stores. Even more are operating out of their back room trying to establish a business they believe in and are passionate about. They are putting hours into trading on line as well as pop up shops, markets and festivals and anywhere else they can do business in a really tough trade. In these physical worlds, the customer has a responsibility to understand what they are buying before they pay.
Put that customer on an internet facing device and the law removes all obligations from the customer to make a considered purchase. The retailer has to stand the cost of processing the order, the effort of shipping and then handling the return, processing the refund, having stock back they believed they had sold, sometimes even getting a return damaged by the customer and having to decide whether it’s worth the effort of a dispute, all through no fault of their own.
.
It's the law. 🤷♂️
Again, that doesn’t mean it’s right in all circumstances and in my opinion supports a growing culture of lack of ownership of decisions and self entitlement.
I don't know what else to add.
You don't need to, your position is very clear that the law is the law and it’s there to protect us from those wishing to rip us off, I haven’t disputed that.
I’m merely highlighting a consideration and impact of the law that’s often missed. Last time I checked, the UK is still a country where such things can still be raised without ‘those who know the law’ telling a person their opinion is wrong.
Your passion to defend online Retailers from lazy customers is commendable but we are talking about a drop shipper selling tat to customers at inflated prices with a Chinese return address making it economically impractical to return. Not a hill I’d want to die on defending this particular retailer.
On the subject of consumer rights I'm currently helping my son look for his first car and I'm seeing stuff like this on occasion;
This is a Dutch Auction trade sale, meaning all vehicles are priced significantly below retail value. However, please note that all vehicles purchased are strictly done so and under trade terms. Standard consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 do not apply, and no warranty is given or implied
Is that legal, or are they just trying to avoid consumer rights?
On the subject of consumer rights I'm currently helping my son look for his first car and I'm seeing stuff like this on occasion;
This is a Dutch Auction trade sale, meaning all vehicles are priced significantly below retail value. However, please note that all vehicles purchased are strictly done so and under trade terms. Standard consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 do not apply, and no warranty is given or implied
Is that legal, or are they just trying to avoid consumer rights?
Not sure, but I thought auctions were 'sold as seen' anyway? on the proviso its not mis-represented?
The places that use this, or similar, wording appear to be dealerships, not auction houses.
This is the Autotrader ad I took the text from;
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202503069825073?
In these physical worlds, the customer has a responsibility to understand what they are buying before they pay.
We're going round in circles now. In your physical world a potential customer can inspect goods prior to purchase so requires different levels of protection from an online purchase.
Last time I checked, the UK is still a country where such things can still be raised without ‘those who know the law’ telling a person their opinion is wrong.
Last I checked, English law couldn't give a **** about your opinion. Opinions are subjective.
I’m merely highlighting a consideration and impact of the law that’s often missed.
Again, we've done this one. Price goods appropriately and there is no "impact" at all.
The places that use this, or similar, wording appear to be dealerships, not auction houses.
This is the Autotrader ad I took the text from;
I know a lot of dealers will simply take customers traded in cars, give them a once over and then punt them to auction as a way of shifting them quickly rather than have them sat on the forecourt for however long..
I'm guessing they are just doing that, but advertising it to get some wider interest in it?
