Should we be accepting returns for opened cosmetic products?

[foalface]

We've recently introduced a new makeup range into what we offer our customers, and we've made it our policy not to accept makeup return once the packaging has been opened. We're of the understanding that big brands do not, so we're aligning our rules with theirs. If I go into boots and buy lipstick, underwear or a swimming costume, try any of them on and want to return them, I know I wouldn't be allowed.


Anyway, a customer has purchased some makeup from us and is claiming to have had an allergic reaction to it. This is absolutely amazing because the makeup we stock is 100% mineral makeup, hypoallergenic, totally pure... but nevertheless, she's saying she's had a reaction and wants to return. I've apologised to her sincerely and said the best I can do is offer to send her items up to the same value (she's allergic to the powder, but she wouldn't be allergic to lipstick, eye liners etc.). She emailed me back with this:



"One of my principal statuory rights is the expectation that the item will be of reasonable quality. This also includes fitness for purpose specified, appearance and finish, freedom from minor blemishes, safety and durability. The failure of the product to meet any one of these criteria is a breach in my statutory rights, enabling me to go back to the retailer, even after some months of use."


Is there any truth in what she is saying? Are we doing something wrong by not allowing customers to return opened cosmetics?

 

[cjd]

How much money are we talking about here?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

. This is absolutely amazing because the makeup we stock is 100% mineral makeup, hypoallergenic, totally pure... but nevertheless, she's saying she's had a reaction and wants to return.

Lead, Arsnic Unranium are also natural minerals but can have effects on the skin

If your terms and condition are clear then stand your ground, and let here report you to trading standards who will not do anything on such a minor issue

 

[KateCB]

One of my principal statuory rights is the expectation that the item will be of reasonable quality. This also includes fitness for purpose specified, appearance and finish, freedom from minor blemishes, safety and durability. The failure of the product to meet any one of these criteria is a breach in my statutory rights, enabling me to go back to the retailer, even after some months of use."

This is true, however, the product is inherently 'fit for purpose' perfect appearance, 'reasonable quality, has no minor blemishes, is durable and has been tested (i would assume) to be safe for human use - the fact that SHE, as a minority, cannot use it is quite beside the point, and the statutory rights wouldn't apply i would have thought?

 

[drounding]

If this is a small value purchase then regardless of whether this is per the DSA or not I would just make a refund and move on. The damage that bad publicity could cause could far outweigh any principles involved.

 

[foalface]

Thanks for all your replies. Yes, it is a small value purchase (£39), but nearly all of what we sell is relatively low value.

We always go above and beyond to satisfy and retain our customers, but in her case she's rejected what I have offered to do for her, and it's clear that she's never going to be a customer of ours in the future.

In our industry it's difficult because you do get a lot of people buying on a whim. The vast majority of our customers are over the moon with their purchases and write in to say how pleased they are, but then you do get a minority that come up with every kind of excuse... "I have oily skin and I thought this makeup might absorb the oil in my skin, but it doesn't so I need a refund." Obviously this lady with the allergic reaction is a different story (assuming she is telling the truth), but that is why we made it a policy, because you never know.

 

[foalface]

as for Ts and Cs, she bought it from us through Amazon so I'll have to check what she agreed to.

 

[cjd]

You don't need to refund her; whether you do depends on whether you think this customer can cause you more damage/work than the £39. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't under the circumstances.

But do check your T&Cs and update them if necessary to make it clear under what terms a refund is possible.

 

[kulture]

The product is fit for purpose in that it is not a faulty batch and works on the vast majority of people.

If however she made you aware of her special needs before purchase, or if in your adverts (or indeed any national brand adverts for the product) it is stated that it will be suitable for ALL skin types and will never produce an allergic reaction. Then it is not fit for purpose. It all depends on what was said before the transaction took place.


But all this is meaningless. You sold it on Amazon. So your terms and conditions are simply ignored by Amazon. If she raises an A-Z claim they will probably decide in her favour.

 

[nikky12]

I understand refund is a policy issue but look underneath. If even after a lot of persuasion she is not willing to cooperate, I would recommend a refund.

The only reason she might not do anything legally if your are protected well but post negative reviews which might be harmful in the longer run.

 

[internetspaceships]

If she bought it through Amazon, was it your own retail store on there?

If it is then Amazon can be pretty ruthless about kicking retailers off when they get client complaints.

I'm not one for willy nilly refunds but if the question is how can she hurt me, then in this case potentially it's a lot.