Customer wanting refund

[SEO Lady]

Hi guys

Please be gentle I think this is the first time in Legal for me..

This is not a massive issue as such but I wanted to learn the legal aspect of this unusual situation of a client of mine which has been going on since Dec 2010

• Customer contacts the sales team furious that her emails are being unanswered and she wants collection of an unwanted item and refund and has been waiting for weeks for a reply
• To resolve upset customer and to make her happy as soon as possible, collection is arranged for the next day in a hurry, despite the fact her original purchase could not be found, yet we had a POD emailed to us by the courier company clearly showing the Con No and signature - Con No was supplied by customer
• Collection was made and customer asks why the automatic refund has not been triggered
• 3 days of confusion and puzzlement later the POD supplied to us by the courier turns out to be from another company who sells the same item, the customer supplied the Con No - it just so happens the other company use the same courier!
• In the meantime old goods are disposed of
• On closer inspection of the original Customers email [with Con No] shows the other company information which was missed by the sales team and also the customer when originally emailed last year
• Customer now wants us to to give a full refund

Obviously, new procedures have been implemented as a result of this unusual case whereby no action is taken until an order can be found on the system despite proof of delivery being evidence of the customer order. The sales team are simply keen to resolve issues as quickly as possible which led to this situation.

Legally, where do we stand if the customer is demanding a refund and holding the company responsible for disposing of the goods that were demanded to be collected?

Many thanks.

 

[kulture]

Sadly I am with the customer here. You have her goods, you have got rid of them. Therefore you cannot return her goods. Your only option is to pay her for them.

It may be of benefit to you in future to explain what went wrong to the customer, and explain that it was not your company who initially sold the goods, nor your company ignoring her e-mails.

 

[Podge]

Sadly I am with the customer here. You have her goods, you have got rid of them. Therefore you cannot return her goods. Your only option is to pay her for them.

It may be of benefit to you in future to explain what went wrong to the customer, and explain that it was not your company who initially sold the goods, nor your company ignoring her e-mails.

Really !
I don't know but i would have thought the way to go about this would be for the claimant to chase who the money was paid to in the first instance ie the other company, and then for the other company to claim the goods back or recompence for the goods from the company that collected them.

I don't really see how you can claim a refund from a company who you have never paid.

 

[SEO Lady]

It may be of benefit to you in future to explain what went wrong to the customer, and explain that it was not your company who initially sold the goods, nor your company ignoring her e-mails.

This is exactly what has been done ... but it seems the customer is refusing or reluctant to contact the original [other] company and just wants a refund, or wants it sorted out on her behalf!

 

[nightmare99]

To resolve upset customer and to make her happy as soon as possible, collection is arranged for the next day in a hurry, despite the fact her original purchase could not be found

IMO this was the mistake really, you should not have done anything without knowing that you actually sold her the item. I do not understand how it was difficult to find the original purchase? Are you dropshipping something and have a completly automated process?

 

[kulture]

If they still had the goods then they should return them and walked away. The problem is that they do not have the goods. Due to their negligence they have accepted a return which they should not have, picked up the goods and then destroyed them. They cannot otherwise recompense the customer.

They have no contract with the other company, and there is nothing the other company can now do as the goods are gone. The basic problem is they should never have agreed to the customer returning the goods which they never sold, and they should not have destroyed goods that did not belong to them. BUT THEY DID.

 

[SEO Lady]

IMO this was the mistake really, you should not have done anything without knowing that you actually sold her the item. I do not understand how it was difficult to find the original purchase? Are you dropshipping something and have a completly automated process?

This was an Amazon purchase that the customer insisted she paid and wanted her collection ASAP and her refund ASAP - yes if the original order was not found this should have raised a flag, but the customer service team try their best to resolve all issues within 24 hours and so quickly booked the collection - at the customers request!

Although I have no financial investment with my client I am on their side as the customer should not have contacted us in the first place, complaining of bad customer service, no refund, no response, customer was very upset and we did exactly as the customer asked!

I don't see how the customer can expect money from a random company she has had no order with, when the company has already paid out £30 to collect goods as per customer request.

The original post was not asking for opinions, I want to find out legally what standing this has, and if anyone can post a link to a site, I would really appreciate it.
​

 

[andygambles]

My suggestion would be that since you have disposed of the goods then the customer is due some form of compensation from you.

What were the goods are they expensive? Why did you dispose of them?

One solution might be rather than "refund" the customer send them whatever it is from your stock (probably cheaper than refund). Unless it is some kind of serialised item or bespoke? The customer can then return the item to the original vendor.

 

[SneakSMS]

My suggestion would be that since you have disposed of the goods then the customer is due some form of compensation from you.

What were the goods are they expensive? Why did you dispose of them?

One solution might be rather than "refund" the customer send them whatever it is from your stock (probably cheaper than refund). Unless it is some kind of serialised item or bespoke? The customer can then return the item to the original vendor.

Please see original post - OP is getting advice on behalf of a client, not himself.

As for OP's client, I suspect that they are liable and would need to replace item at their cost or refund the purchase price.

 

[kulture]

As it was an Amazon order the matter gets more complex.

The customer MAY initiate an A-Z claim on Amazon against the original company and win. Whilst additionally claiming a refund off you. Not all customers are honest!

The simple facts are you have her property, you have destroyed it, she wants her money back.

I would get in touch with the original company and see if a compromise arrangement can be sorted out.

Why did you destroy it? Is this normal when one of YOUR customers returns unwanted goods? Do you get compensation from the supplier? You have a strange business model, which may be perfectly understandable if we knew what you were selling.

 

[andygambles]

Please see original post - OP is getting advice on behalf of a client, not himself.

As for OP's client, I suspect that they are liable and would need to replace item at their cost or refund the purchase price.

Sorry replace "you" with "your client"

Although my suggestion was the same as yours

 

[cmcp]

is your client mr magoo of the acme trading company?

 

[SEO Lady]

Thanks everyone (especially cmcp )

A very valid point about the customer raising the issue via Amazon about the order issue - however is this like eBay where you have 90 days to resolve the issue as I believe this order was placed by the customer as long back as September 2010 which is the reason the Sales Team thought they could not track the order.

The comments to the disposal of the goods - the various components are sent back to the supplier where they may or not be disassembled to verify they are in 'unused new condition' and may or may not be used in the production of items in the future.

The customer does not want replacement goods, simply a refund.

 

[kulture]

Thanks everyone (especially cmcp )

A very valid point about the customer raising the issue via Amazon about the order issue - however is this like eBay where you have 90 days to resolve the issue as I believe this order was placed by the customer as long back as September 2010 which is the reason the Sales Team thought they could not track the order.

You should tighten your procedures anyway as it seems a long time to accept a return.

The comments to the disposal of the goods - the various components are sent back to the supplier where they may or not be disassembled to verify they are in 'unused new condition' and may or may not be used in the production of items in the future.

The customer does not want replacement goods, simply a refund.

So you have "your" money back in the form of a credit, so give the customer a "refund"

 

[SEO Lady]

The comments to the disposal of the goods - the various components are sent back to the supplier where they may or not be disassembled to verify they are in 'unused new condition' and may or may not be used in the production of items in the future.

I'm afraid it's not that simple but in theory that is another valid point.

When you say about tightening procedures we offer a no-quibble 1 year guarantee as customer service is highly important. The Sales Team process up to 15,000 orders per month and take Customer Care very seriously.

 

[kulture]

If customer service is so important, why are you dithering over this one. If you had done it properly, and picked up from your error and given the customer the "refund" as a gesture of goodwill, you may have gained a new customer. Now you have gained a problem, and will still probably end up paying the refund.

For "you" read "your client".

 

[SEO Lady]

Personally in my opinion I do not see why my client should pay a refund to someone who mistakenly approached them accusing them of bad customer service and as a result did everything they could to try and resolve the matter as a priority.

To me that's like taking something back to Tesco when bought from Sainsburys and demanding a refund.

 

[andygambles]

Personally in my opinion I do not see why my client should pay a refund to someone who mistakenly approached them accusing them of bad customer service and as a result did everything they could to try and resolve the matter as a priority.

To me that's like taking something back to Tesco when bought from Sainsburys and demanding a refund.

The problem is the client has "disposed" of the customers goods. They either need to be replaced and returned to the customer so they can approach the correct company or compensated for them being disposed of.

 

[SEO Lady]

The problem is the client has "disposed" of the customers goods. They either need to be replaced and returned to the customer so they can approach the correct company or compensated for them being disposed of.

Thanks Andy.

The point of the thread is to find out from a legal point of view where both my client and the non-customer stand, which is still a mystery.

 

[Oscar Tango]

IMHO this is entirely the original customer's fault and your client has done nothing wrong. Obviously you cannot refund for something you didn't supply in the first place.
You have already incurred some expense in processing the mistaken return, anything further would be a complete gesture of goodwill on your part - that is really the only consideration, is it worth your while to offer anything to negate any negative feedback.
Legally I don't think the original customer has a leg to stand on, it was their mistake, and they can't really give you negative feedback for something you didn't supply in the first place.

I would just ignore them, they will go away once they realise the futility of pursuing you for their mistake.

 

[SEO Lady]

they can't really give you negative feedback for something you didn't supply in the first place.

They can't give negative feedback on Amazon as the order was not placed with my client.

I would just ignore them, they will go away once they realise the futility of pursuing you for their mistake.

Ignoring an issue is not one of the options here, regardless of whether the person is a paying customer or not, the client would rather respond by communicating in a factual manner and asking them to contact the correct person to resolve despite the many people who each contributed an oversight in the catalogue of issues:

• 'non-customer' first of all contacting the client and accusing them of not responding to customer emails and taking their money unjustly
• Courier company providing correct POD but did not verify it was actually an item sold by the client, instead someone else
• 'non-customer' forwarding an Amazon email with consignment number on, without realising the company name does not correspond with client name
• Sales Team not spotting the same
• Sales Team acting on impulse and collecting an item without locating the original order, in an effort to resolve complaint as quickly as possible, acting on the repeated requests to do so.

This has resulted in improvement in Customer Service processes to prevent the same situation ever happenening again.

Personally I am still of the opinion "Why a business should financially reimburse a complete stranger for their error?"

I'll update tomorrow as the client is awaiting a response from the 'non-customer' following a lengthy email detailing the errors that resulted in this predicament.

 

[kulture]

"Personally I am still of the opinion "Why a business should financially reimburse a complete stranger for their error?""

Whilst I would agree with your comment if the business had detected this error up front. They did not. They agreed with the customer that they would uplift it and refund. They accepted responsibility. They uplifted the goods. They have disposed of the goods. I would argue that there is a contract between the customer and the business by the business agreeing to uplift and refund.

By all means walk away and refuse to refund. I doubt the customer will be able to actually do anything. The contract will be difficult to prove. But it compounds rotten customer service.

 

[Oscar Tango]

There is no contract - the original customer made a stupid mistake, and that has caused all the problems.

They are at fault here, not the innocent non-supplier organisation, who were trying to deliver good customer service with a quick response to the return request. The fact that their processes didn't check for returns of non-supplied items comes as no surprise to me, I'm sure the same would happen with many other businesses.

Personally I would not feel obliged to expose any mistakes in my own processes in this scenario, the fact is the customer made the error creating a wierd scenario which the processes didn't handle.

I certainly wouldn't write them a long email explaining 'my' errors, but you're right I wouldn't ignore them, I would write them a short email explaining their error and the fact that their return has been unfortunately disposed of by the BAU process - tough luck.

Of course there may be other factors to consider;

What was the retail value of this order?

Has the daft customer ever been a customer of the non-supplier in the past?

I'm guessing that Amazon could not penalize the non-supplier in this scenario, despite their reputation for siding 100% with customers.

 

[Katy Radcliffe]

Personally in my opinion I do not see why my client should pay a refund to someone who mistakenly approached them accusing them of bad customer service and as a result did everything they could to try and resolve the matter as a priority.

To me that's like taking something back to Tesco when bought from Sainsburys and demanding a refund.

Because your client assumed responsibility for the problem. Once they picked up the item, they picked up the problem. It's now theirs to fix.

 

[Oscar Tango]

Because your client assumed responsibility for the problem. Once they picked up the item, they picked up the problem. It's now theirs to fix.

I do not agree, both morally and legally. They did not assume reponsibility.

 

[SEO Lady]

There is no contract - the original customer made a stupid mistake, and that has caused all the problems.

They are at fault here, not the innocent non-supplier organisation, who were trying to deliver good customer service with a quick response to the return request. The fact that their processes didn't check for returns of non-supplied items comes as no surprise to me, I'm sure the same would happen with many other businesses.

Personally I would not feel obliged to expose any mistakes in my own processes in this scenario, the fact is the customer made the error creating a wierd scenario which the processes didn't handle.

I certainly wouldn't write them a long email explaining 'my' errors, but you're right I wouldn't ignore them, I would write them a short email explaining their error and the fact that their return has been unfortunately disposed of by the BAU process - tough luck.

Of course there may be other factors to consider;

What was the retail value of this order?

Has the daft customer ever been a customer of the non-supplier in the past?

I'm guessing that Amazon could not penalize the non-supplier in this scenario, despite their reputation for siding 100% with customers.

By not admitting to errors on all sides it would give a biased story, there's not many negatives in declaring you learn by a mistake, these are the kind of lessons that rarely get repeated.

The retail value is irrelevant whether a hundred pounds, a thousand pounds or 50p. It's accepting accountability for someone else's mistake whilst striving to give the best customer service.

And to kulture's quote of:

But it compounds rotten customer service.

.. John Mcenroe, right? You cannot be serious. It's your attitude that is rotten when clearly the Customer Care team cared TOO MUCH and didn't doubt the customer, just wanted to resolve as soon as they can.

If you feel that bad about the customer, how about putting your hand in your pocket and sending over some cash from your bank account for no reason?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Forgive me for being stupid but I cannot see how someone who you have never supplied can be called a 'customer'. They are just a member of the public who made a stupid mistake and expect you to sort it out. Their beef should be with the person they originally bought from.

We have occasionally had items delivered to us in error. I currently have a piece of KD furniture and will shortly start charging storage and will then dump it. At no time do I think I am liable if the courier will not collect.

 

[kulture]

Clearly the only answers you like are the ones that agree with you pre formed opinion. Why post here? (for you and your, read your client)

Your client boasts about wanting to offer great customer service. Fair enough. Great customer service is where a company goes above and beyond the standard and sorts out it's mistakes. We can all offer good customer service when things go well. What makes a company stand out is what it does when things go wrong.

When the lady contacted you your first mistake was not discovering that she is not one of your customers. Did her compliant that she had been contacting you for weeks and you ignoring her not give you a clue? If the customer service is so great then this should have rung a warning bell.

Your second mistake was disposing of the goods before tying them up with an order. Basically destroying property that is not yours, but which you had accepted responsibility.

Your third mistake was doing nothing. Letting the customer sit there waiting for a refund that was never going to happen. And not knowing that nothing was happening.

So three major mistakes in customer service.
Now I know she was not your customer. And if these mistakes had not happened you would have directed her to the proper resolution and she would have her money, you would have no loss and everyone would be happy.

But these mistakes happened. It is possible that if you then stepped up and admitted responsibility and gave the customer a refund as a gesture of goodwill, and made her realise her initial mistake, then you might have got a future customer. A new customer.

Instead you have made someone a dissatisfied customer, who is probably bad mouthing you to her friends, completely omitting her fault.

So although she is not your customer, and although she made the initial mistake, which is easy to do. You have provided poor customer service.

So you can now admit your mistakes and refund, or tell her to go away. N
Before you do anything however look at it from het point if view.
She purchased an item from a seller on amazon. She wanted to return it and got ignored. She looked up the seller on amazon, missing out the tiny detail that the seller had changed, and phoned them up. You then acknowledged her as a customer, promised a refund, picked up the goods, destroyed the goods, and now tell her it's nothing to do with you. It has taken so long she cannot get her money back and she has not got the goods. In her shoes I would be <<<profanity removed by mod>>> with you.

 

[SEO Lady]

Clearly the only answers you like are the ones that agree with you pre formed opinion. Why post here?

Ref:

I wanted to learn the legal aspect of this unusual situation

The original post was not asking for opinions, I want to find out legally what standing this has, and if anyone can post a link to a site, I would really appreciate it.

The point of the thread is to find out from a legal point of view where both my client and the non-customer stand, which is still a mystery.

If you read the original post and throughout this thread I am asking for legal answers not opinions, which obviously this is the way the digression has led. Unless you can help will illustrating this thread with any legal slants, I will disregard your personal opinion as much as you disregard mine.

 

[arcon5]

the Criminal Damage Act 1971provided a definition wide enough to apply to any tangible property. By section 1(1) of the Act:

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
​

Possession of items

Section 3 provides that a person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it
(a) to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person; or(b) to destroy or damage his own or the user’s property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person; shall be guilty of an offence.

Just a punt here, but would the criminal damage act perhaps have a part to play?
Maybe a legal person can help interpret this....

Your client was in possession of these with hthe intent of refunding the items only.
The ownership of the goods would stay with the customer until the sale has been cancelled and ownership transferred back to your client.

I would imagine you have a duty of care.


But from a moral standpoint I think he should reimburse the customer or make an offer of reimbursement depending on the value.

Afterall, even though the customer has made a mistake, so has your client and now destroyed property which wasn't rightfully theirs, irrespective of how they came about having it in their possession.

Just a thought

 

[kulture]

If you want properly qualified legal opinions then go see a solicitor, who will ask background questions, and then give you an answer.

If you read my posts you will see that I think that a contract exists between the lady and your client. The contract was formed when your client agreed to take the goods and refund her purchase price to her. The fact that this contract was formed on a false assumption on both of their parts makes it complicated. The fact that you client disposed of the goods means that they cannot cancel the contract and return the situation to the start position.
So they should pay the lady for her goods.

 

[valentinos displays]

I agree with Kulture with this one!

 

[Oscar Tango]

Isn't this getting a bit out of hand?

It seems that opinions are pretty divided on this, but no realistic legal advice is forthcoming (criminal damage? I don't think so, the police would laugh...)

Perhaps a better solution is to involve the original supplier as they surely have a part to play;
- they refund the customer (they got the sale)
- your client can agree something with the original supplier to cover loss of the returned item, maybe an invoice to cover costs or just a 'we owe you one' would do it. After all, they are the ones at risk of getting a negative on Amazon from the original customer, even though they have done nothing wrong.

Amazon also probably have some responsibility here, presumably it is their online screens that have caused the confusion in the first place - and I believe many buyers take little notice of who the supplier is, as far as they know they bought it on Amazon.

But I don't think you'll get anywhere at all with Amazon.

 

[arcon5]

It seems that opinions are pretty divided on this, but no realistic legal advice is forthcoming (criminal damage? I don't think so, the police would laugh...)

Shoplifting is a criminal offence -- yet the police tell businesses to factor the cost in.
Infact the only crimes the police tend to take seriosuly these days is speeding and erm.. can't think of anything else



No do I think opinions are divided. The general consensus is that ops client should make right of the situation -- and personally I also agree with Kulture here.


Customer won't get anywhere with Amazon, since the seller will accept the return but the customer cannot return the goods, won't be able to provide evidence of the return. The sellers obligations have all been met so this is a no go area.

But at the end of the day the customer has £x less than they did before and have no items because ops clients company has been negligent with the handling of the situation. So at the very least replace the items and then allow the buyer to do as they wish.

 

[kulture]

As this is complicated, a solicitor would be the only person who can answer this taking into account case law.

What the op has not said is how much this item is. Their client was certainly prepared to pay £30 to get it back. The op has not said exactly why the lady wanted to return the item, but they did say that they offer a no quibble one year guarantee. This implies a good profit margin and a high quality item. I would guess that the price the lady paid was in the hundreds, if not more. This means that the lady may want to raise a small claim as she is out of pocket.

The op also said the the item was disposed of by splitting it up and the component parts returned to the manufacturer to see if they can be re-used. I do not believe for a second that they do this for free. They will get some benefit, either by way of credit or money or beneficial terms. So they have disposed of property that does not belong to them and benefited. So there is at least a civil case here and probably not criminal.

 

[Katy Radcliffe]

If your client needs legal advice, they should ask a legal professional. I can't imagine they're asking you to help them via "post it on a message board full of retailers and service providers and see what people say."

 

[SEO Lady]

The op has not said exactly why the lady wanted to return the item, but they did say that they offer a no quibble one year guarantee. This implies a good profit margin and a high quality item.

I can see why you would make that conclusion but this is not the case. Profit margin has nothing to do with aiming to provide the best customer service.

I would guess that the price the lady paid was in the hundreds, if not more.

I can see why you would make that conclusion but this is not the case. Price should not be a reflection with aiming to provide the best customer service.

If your client needs legal advice, they should ask a legal professional.

At no point did I say the client needed legal advice, I posted this as an opportunity to learn something I did not know from a legal point of view.

I can't imagine they're asking you to help them via "post it on a message board full of retailers and service providers and see what people say."

You are right, this wasn't posted to "See what people say". I was asking for information on a Legal forum to see if people had experienced a similar set of circumstances and legally where does a) the individual stand and b) where does my client stand.

Just a punt here, but would the criminal damage act perhaps have a part to play?
Maybe a legal person can help interpret this....

Your client was in possession of these with hthe intent of refunding the items only.
The ownership of the goods would stay with the customer until the sale has been cancelled and ownership transferred back to your client.

I would imagine you have a duty of care.


But from a moral standpoint I think he should reimburse the customer or make an offer of reimbursement depending on the value.

Afterall, even though the customer has made a mistake, so has your client and now destroyed property which wasn't rightfully theirs, irrespective of how they came about having it in their possession.

Just a thought

I nominate this as the best reply in this thread to date, thank you Arcon5.

 

[kulture]

I do not think it is criminal damage. The agreement was to pick up the item from the lady, dispose of it, and pay her the original purchase price.

The last step has not been done. It is breach of contract and a civil matter. I very much doubt that the police would bother with this, and the only option the lady has is to submit a small claim.

 

[kulture]

One final point, you keep saying that your client wants to provide the best customer service. A great ambition. They should stick to it, and pay up, not seek to hide behind the law.

 

[Katy Radcliffe]

You know, there's a web site where you can actually ask experts and get answers from solicitors. It's called justanswer. com. Of course, you do have to pay a little money (clicking "accept" when a solicitor provides you with an answer you think is good.)

While this may be a business forum, I think most people who participate on message boards do so because they enjoy it and find it entertaining. If you post something here that we find interesting and we want to comment on it, that's our prerogative. You can ignore what people have to say, but you can't whinge about them saying it.