Mifsuds, Paying the postage on a lens return?

krazy_horse

krazy_horse

Messages
824
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

I purchased a lens from Mifsuds on Sunday night and it arrived on Tuesday. On opening the lens, I found that both the front and rear element had water marks/spots on it.

Also I could see some fine dust on the 2nd element in from the rear of the lens.

I sent them an email about this and called them today. Their response was that as this was a Tamron lens, it was much cheaper than other lens manufacturers because they were not assmebled in "clean" dust free environments and inevitably dust sometimes gets in. :cautious: And as for the marks, the reason was just that sometimes when they are cleaning the lenses, they don't do it properly and therefore some of the residue is left on the glass.

Personally i thought this was just a load of cobblers. Why would a professional lens manufacturer use a product that could potentially leave residue on the lens, and secondly the dust was really quite obvious, that i'm not sure how it got through a QC test?

So I said I would be returning the lens, and requested a replacement. They said that I would need to send them the lens back before they would send another out. Which was fair enough, so I simply re-ordered and paid for another to be sent out today (I need it for Thursday).

When asking if they would refund the cost of me having to send the lens back they said no as the condition of the lens was acceptable to them, as it was "factory fresh" and they do not inspect the lenses before they ship them because some customers prefer their lenses to be "untouched". Maybe they should change their policy?

So I have now had to pay out for 2 lenses, and 3 lots of postage. :shake:

Personally I don't think this is the correct way to deal with a customer, I shared my thoughts with Mifsuds, however I got nowhere. If the 2nd lens they send is still dusty/dirty, I shall be writing another email/letter to complain to them.

I guess this is where "real" shops come into their own as you can inspect the lens before you walk away with it!

I will let you know how I get on tomorrow! I hope this is just a one off, and it was potentially a display model or similar, we shall see.

Anyone else had a similar situation?

Sorry for the long post, just wanted to tell someone...

Jonathan

PS (embarrassingly) this is the first brand new lens i have ever bought, i have had more than 20 2nd hand ones, which have more times than not been in a better condition than this.
 
Well well well, bugger me.
I had a similar problem with them.

I wanted to upgrade my Nikon D40, so went for the D70s second hand from them.
When it arrived, all looked good.
Except the 'dust' on the sensor. I say dust, it was more like pebble dash!!
Even at wide apertures it was visible in shots.
I have never, EVER seen a sensor this dirty.

Called them, and they said post it back to them and they'll clean it free, or I could have a refund.
Didn't want the camera then, the damage was done. It had clearly not been looked after, so who knows what else may be wrong with it?

I posted it back, got a refund, minus the £20 I paid out for special delivery post! So I queried this, and guess what they said?
It looks acceptable/satisfactory to them, so they will not refund my postage costs :D
They've cleaned it, and it's spotless. Which I don't doubt, but it's the principal.........

Not sure if I'd ever use them again........
 
I got my Tamron 17-35 from them and it was minty mint - quite surprised you had a problem with this.

My first Nikkor 24-70 has contamination in it (metallic flakes) and while I knew it would never show in images, I did return it. My 70-300 VR also had dust under the front element, which I never did anything about. These were both new.

I don't mind a bit of dust in a lens (its inevitable!) - too be honest, I suspect somewhere down the line you lens has been used - purely because of the watermarks, let alone dust.

If you do need to borrow a lens for your trip, you know where I am :)
 
krazy_horse said:
Hi folks,
So I have now had to pay out for 2 lenses, and 3 lots of postage. :shake:
Click to expand...

Okay, I presume there'll be a refund on the first lens so whilst you're piggybank's a bit light, you're only going to end up paying for one and keeping one.

As to the postage, my suggestion is that you should take a breath, take another breath, make a cuppa, then think about your future mail order purchases. Ask whether you'd rather stand the cost of return postage if the return is a matter of your choice (see below) or whether you'd rather pay a bit more through the nose on every purchase so that the shop can offer "all postage included" deals?

Now, if it's not too late, I'd suggest that you confirm your previous conversations with the supplier and ask them to please kindly call you with their opinion once they've got the lens back and had time to have a proper look at it again.

(After all, it might just be that the lens had just come in and been sent out to you without thorough checking, possibly someone looked at it in a hurry, who knows? I'm not perfect, I bet you aren't and I think it's a tad unrealistic to expect them to be too. )

I hope you end up with a satisfactory outcome.
 
Thanks for the heads up, always good to know about shops that give this sort of crap service, it amazes me how these places can deal like this in the sort of climate were in, i won't be using them :thumbsdown:
 
I've had my eye on them for a D700, D3 or a 5D but now I'm thinking twice. They seemed to get high praise here so this is surprising.
 
I would get them to confirm what they said about how the lenses are manufactured, then take this information to Tamron and see what they have to say about it!!!!
 
Not amazed at this. It is the grubbiest camera shop I have been in ever. Some of the kit had not even been cleaned upon part exchange and I was appalled by the overall state of the place.
 
You would have to pay for the shoe leather or the petrol to take it back in person, why not the postage? I agree that their idea of satisfactory condition is suspect but I have to say I don't know of any retailers who would refund return postage or even initial postage.
 
Jessops or Warehouse Express will do "swap-outs" ie send a replacement and pick up the existing one.

Mifsuds use Royal Mail Special Delivery,so there are maybe logistical reasons why they cannot offer this.
 
Under distance selling regulations they should be paying for the return postage unless they specifically stated in their contract with you that returns would be payable by you.

They cannot refuse to refund under the DSRs, check out this link and go to section 3.47

Hope that helps.

Also, they must refund the postage you paid originally, and also they cannot charge a restocking fee or similar.
 
Last edited:
Jessops & Calumet: arranged pickup.
SRS Microsystems: refunded return Special Delivery.
Ffordes: any fule could see what was wrong with the used lens. Serial number had been removed, too! Awaiting outcome.
Edit: Checked credit card online, and they've refunded purchase price minus postage, so I've lost £15 to have the pleasure
of a five minute look at a dodgy lens that was probably nicked in the first place. Their website does not comply with the
Distance Selling Regs: they don't state their terms.

They're all sellers you know the name of, and they didn't supply the advertised items. Most substituted older models. On other
occasions they've come up to scratch, but that is as should be expected, dammit!
 
Last edited:
Send them the link to this posting! Tell them about the thousands (ok ok!) of togs that will be reading this and probably won't deal with them again! You never know it just might work!!



I have a photographic memory that was never developed
 
FWIW I bought a lens from Park cameras - a Canon 24mm f/1.4L - and I was unhappy with the IQ. They refunded me in full for the original purchase, including p&p and also refunded the £9 for the return postage, and rightly so. Why should I be out of pocket because they supplied a duff lens? It was bad enough that I wasted hours of my time testing the lens, microfocus adjusting and generally faffing around to try to figure out if the problem was me, my camera or the lens.

Full marks to Park Cameras for doing the right thing.

I've also had unsatisfactory lenses from Amazon, which I also had to return. With Amazon you get the option to print a return label and arrange a time convenient for you to have a courier pick up the package, or pay return postage and have that refunded in addition to the original cost. Full cost to me - a sheet of paper with some printer ink on it, a bit of tape and a few minutes to package the lot back up. I don't think you could reasonably expect more.

Full marks to Amazon too:)

It sounds like Mifsuds is not quite up to speed on the customer service side of things. Best avoided really.
 
Last edited:
They advertise in Amateur Photographer. I'll send them an email later tonight
 
I think i will take them out of my bookmarks.:|:eek:
 
biggest load of nonsense ive heard if its a new lens it should be immaculate

they should pay for any extra postage incurred and appologise

a item should be fit for purpose especialy when new. they are the seller if the goods are not up to scatch they should make that clear or not sell them.
 
The company I work for [2 days a week] its in the T&C's that if there is a problem with any item and the customer wants to return it to us, that they have to pay return postage. Not all the customers check the T&C's before ticking them, then they cause uproar.

I wish it wasnt in the T&C's as it just causes headaches for me and the other girl that works there!
 
sorry i cant see that even if its in the small print

why should someone have to pay to return fauly goods?
 
ditchdigger said:
sorry i cant see that even if its in the small print

why should someone have to pay to return fauly goods?
Click to expand...

I agree,i just wont use this one,its the only way to get things changed.:)
 
The easiest way to do it is to dispute the charge for the first lens with your cc company (assuming that's how you paid), stating that the lens isn't, in your opinion, of merchantable quality and let Mifsuds deal with the hassle, instead of you.
 
I was about to drop some cash on a new lens from Mifsuds. Saw this and have had second thoughts. I noticed that they stated that they used 1024 bit encryption on the cc details page ... checked and it was 256 bit (I was literally about to enter in my cards details and decided to look about in case)... still encrypted I know but I'm paranoid about online transactions to begin with so thought that Id double check with a certain search engine and this site that I lurk on from time to time.... saw this then decided not to go ahead.

Have spent an extra 15 notes and bought from another retailer. To me the extra cash is worth the peace of mind.

Its a pity as I usually don't mind helping the little shops
 
You can find the distance selling regulations here:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/distance-selling-regulations/

They state that if the item is faulty then you shouldn't get stung for the postage etc, there may be a problem here as Misfuds say that it was fine.

My Advice, Write a strongly worded letter to misfuds with the relevant regulations quoted, if you don't get anywhere then go to your credit card company. Misfuds have pretty much accepted culpability through issuing your refund I doubt it would take much to get the CC company to claw back the missing cash.
 
Regardless of any stated terms and conditions on the website (or anywhere else for that matter) the seller is ALWAYS responsible for return postage in the event of a faulty item - this is stated quite clearly in the Distance Selling Regulations. Unless they clearly state otherwise prior to you completing the purchase remotely, then they are also responsible for return postage if you simply decide you do not want the item.

Also recent consumer law (in the last couple of years) changed the burden of proof of the existance or otherwise of a fault. It used to be the case that the customer had to prove there was a fault with the item, but it is now the responsibility of the seller to prove that there wasn't a fault, and lets face it, them simply saying there isn't a fault is not proof.

Also note that any fault appearing within 6 months of the date of sale is deemed to have existed on the date of the sale.

I have purchased from Mifsuds before and thank goodness I have never had a problem with anything, but I will think twice before buying again.......

Think on Mifsuds!

Dellifer - I think the company you work for should read up on the DSR's - if their terms and conditions do indeed state the customer is liable for return postage in the event of a fault then it is possible they are committing an offence under the DSR's. I suspect it won't be too long before someone complains to trading standards.
 
Last edited:
I don't have the DSR in front of me but I find it highly unlikely it makes the retailer responsible for return postage by default for non-faulty items - ie a change of mind.
 
I have used Mifsuds for a number of years and had never had any problems with them.

I bought a couple of Mamiya RB67 Pro SD 120 backs from Mifsuds a few weeks ago, one was sold as new (not certain it actually was though, had a couple of really small marks on it) and one as used. I was unable to use the backs for about 14 days until Good Friday and I then discovered that the used back was faulty and did not wind on correctly or clear the exposed flag.

I phoned Mifsuds the next day and explained the situation and they told me to return the back. This I did by special delivery, and about four working days later I got a receipt in the post informing me that they had refunded my credit card with the cost of the back. There was no additional payment for the return postage, no offer of a replacement even though they were/are currently advertising one.

I am a little disappointed with the end result, but most of my other transactions have been conducted in person as they are the nearest proper photographic shop around (there is a Jessops and LCE in Plymouth, but they are both so expensive as to be a joke).
 
puddleduck said:
I don't have the DSR in front of me but I find it highly unlikely it makes the retailer responsible for return postage by default for non-faulty items - ie a change of mind.
Click to expand...

From the OFTs guidance notes to business re the DSR's :
"Only if it is covered in the contract and the written information can you require the consumer to pay for the cost of returning the ordered goods."

Therefore the default posistion is that the supplier pays for the return even for non-faulty goods, however, by stating that the customer is responsible in the terms and conditions, the supplier can override this.

For faulty goods, the supplier is always responsible for the cost of the return postage.
 
krazy_horse said:
Hi folks,

I purchased a lens from Mifsuds on Sunday night and it arrived on Tuesday. On opening the lens, I found that both the front and rear element had water marks/spots on it.

Also I could see some fine dust on the 2nd element in from the rear of the lens.

I sent them an email about this and called them today. Their response was that as this was a Tamron lens, it was much cheaper than other lens manufacturers because they were not assmebled in "clean" dust free environments and inevitably dust sometimes gets in. :cautious: And as for the marks, the reason was just that sometimes when they are cleaning the lenses, they don't do it properly and therefore some of the residue is left on the glass.

Personally i thought this was just a load of cobblers. Why would a professional lens manufacturer use a product that could potentially leave residue on the lens, and secondly the dust was really quite obvious, that i'm not sure how it got through a QC test?

So I said I would be returning the lens, and requested a replacement. They said that I would need to send them the lens back before they would send another out. Which was fair enough, so I simply re-ordered and paid for another to be sent out today (I need it for Thursday).

When asking if they would refund the cost of me having to send the lens back they said no as the condition of the lens was acceptable to them, as it was "factory fresh" and they do not inspect the lenses before they ship them because some customers prefer their lenses to be "untouched". Maybe they should change their policy?

So I have now had to pay out for 2 lenses, and 3 lots of postage. :shake:

Personally I don't think this is the correct way to deal with a customer, I shared my thoughts with Mifsuds, however I got nowhere. If the 2nd lens they send is still dusty/dirty, I shall be writing another email/letter to complain to them.

I guess this is where "real" shops come into their own as you can inspect the lens before you walk away with it!

I will let you know how I get on tomorrow! I hope this is just a one off, and it was potentially a display model or similar, we shall see.

Anyone else had a similar situation?

Sorry for the long post, just wanted to tell someone...

Jonathan

PS (embarrassingly) this is the first brand new lens i have ever bought, i have had more than 20 2nd hand ones, which have more times than not been in a better condition than this.
Click to expand...


I bought a Tamron lens around Christmas time, and for about £100 what do you expect?

I've never had any problem with Mifsuds, they were really helpful and friendly. I'd certainly recommend them to anybody. They have newly refurbished their shop which is even better and they even made me a cuppa while I was being served - Now that's customer service!:eek:
 
A new lens is what it states a "new" lens, therefore should be in perfect condition.

If it's sold as a display model (I would still expect near perfect condition) or shop soiled, then you would possibly expect not perfect, but probably still wouldn't expect dust inside the lens !

Hope you manage to get it sorted (y)
 
andyred said:
I'd expect what I bought and if that was a new lens, then I'd expect a new lens. :cautious:
Click to expand...

I don't think a shop can be blamed for an unopened lens having a fault, and I certainly wouldn't want a shop to open my box to make sure it's ok either. Same with most things, such as mobiles or tvs, sometimes they are made with faults which have slipped through the net at the factory.
 
What? Of course they should take responsibility, thats the whole point of the distance selling regulations that have been highlighted in this thread!

If I buy a lens from Jessops, get it home and its not fit for purpose, I take it straight back to Jessops, its for them to sort out with the Manufacturer. Putting more distance between the seller and buyer should not erode the rights of either, this is why the distance selling regulations exist. In this instance the purchaser is not happy with the items and does not regard them as fit for purpose. Under the DSL the seller should be reimbursing for return of the lens, just as they charge the original purchaser for shipping the lens from the shop.


On a slightly different note I'd like to say a big welcome to the forums "central712" - however this thread seems like an incredibly strange place to start posting. You didn't even post in the Hello section - why is that? You don't happen to come from south Devon now do you? :cautious:
 
Last edited:
hyakuhei said:
I'd like to say a big welcome to the forums "central712" - however this seems like an incredibly strange place to start posting, you didn't even post in the Hello section - why is that? You don't happen to come from south Devon now do you? :cautious:
Click to expand...


:LOL:
 
Yes they should take responsibility for the fault, which they then pass back to the manufacturer.

But they certainly can't be blamed for it.
 
Marcel said:
Yes they should take responsibility for the fault, which they then pass back to the manufacturer.

But they certainly can't be blamed for it.
Click to expand...

Depends if it was genuinely an un-opened box I suppose and yes, if it was then you can't blame them but equally they should do what is required by the DSR in either case. Failure to do the latter only compounds the implication of the former (No DSR = Dodgy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top