Dealer dealings worse than ebay

R

raider2727

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,108
Edit My Images
Yes
Last week I brought a used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG Macro MKII lens from a well known Photographic dealer in Brixham who advertise on the net.
Obviously buying in this way you have to rely on a accurate description from the seller.
When I ordered mine I specifically asked it there was any rubs or marks on the coating of the lens and was told no.
When it arrived it had a three quarter inch patch of coating rubbed off the body of the lens so I returned it.
I had an email from the company today saying there description was correct and as such they deducted £36 from my refund to cover postage charges.
Does this seem right?
 
raider2727 said:
Last week I brought a used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG Macro MKII lens from a well known Photographic dealer in Brixham who advertise on the net.
Obviously buying in this way you have to rely on a accurate description from the seller.
When I ordered mine I specifically asked it there was any rubs or marks on the coating of the lens and was told no.
When it arrived it had a three quarter inch patch of coating rubbed off the body of the lens so I returned it.
I had an email from the company today saying there description was correct and as such they deducted £36 from my refund to cover postage charges.
Does this seem right?
Click to expand...

By "coating" I would normally assume that someone meant on the lens optics, rather than the paint finish on the body of the lens, so it could well just be that they misunderstood what you were asking.

In that case, assuming the optics were unmarked they would be accepting the return under the DSR, but £36 sounds a lot to ship a lens - I think it cost me £25 to send my first 70-200 VR back.
 
£36 sounds a bit expensive for one way P&P.

If someone was asking me about lens coating I would assume they were talking about the coating on the glass, the black finish on the body of the lens I would call paint or finish.

When I've dealt with Mifsuds, I've always found their descriptions to be on the overcritical side and have been in the shop while the assistant has been checking over a lens while the customer has been on the phone.

Not sure if they still offer their 10 day approval for used kit bought mail order - I think some people were treating it as a free hire service.
 
Also if you didn't inspect it physically before purchase you'd be covered by distance selling regs which permit you to return, at their expense, within a set period, 7 days IIRC.
 
raider2727 said:
When I ordered mine I specifically asked it there was any rubs or marks on the coating of the lens and was told no.
When it arrived it had a three quarter inch patch of coating rubbed off the body of the lens so I returned it.
Click to expand...
You ask about the Lens I would take this to be the Glass as in the lens is the glass.
You then talk about the body having marks and how would this effect it working?
Oh just noticed you live so close as well.....
 
hi sorry i should have made it clear, i am still in a red mist of rage .

When i asked if it was rubbed or peeling i said the black coating as i know this is a problem on the lens, the person i spoke to knew what i was saying and understood what i was asking as she knew it was a problem.

The money i have been charged covers the £15 they spent in sending it to me and £21.65 i spent in returning the lens via RMSD.

i probably could have lived with the return charge but to be charged for both for a lens which was wrongly described and £500 is a bit OTT.
 
raider2727 said:
I had an email from the company today saying there description was correct and as such they deducted £36 from my refund to cover postage charges.
Click to expand...

raider2727 said:
The money i have been charged covers the £15 they spent in sending it to me and £21.65 i spent in returning the lens via RMSD.
Click to expand...


So they didn't actually deduct £36 from your refund then?
 
Hi, obviously it is a bit of a poor show if they mis-sold you the lens by giving a false description of any marks or damage but can I ask you why you did not physically go back to the shop as it would have been cheaper in fuel to drive or even catch the bus from Exmouth to Brixham IMO. ;)
 
kjevans said:
Hi, obviously it is a bit of a poor show if they mis-sold you the lens by giving a false description of any marks or damage but can I ask you why you did not physically go back to the shop as it would have been cheaper in fuel to drive or even catch the bus from Exmouth to Brixham IMO. ;)
Click to expand...

You are probably right but we were busy over the weekend and with work i would have been unable to get there until Thursday which would be too late for the 7 day return policy under the Distance selling regulations act of 2000.
To get from Exmouth to Brixham it is a 72 mile round trip unless you have a boat, so post was obvious choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top