Camera/lens Returns -- whats the norm?

[tommy_baker]

Just bought a lens, it was described as "clean lenses"; however on inspection I have noticed

what could be balsam separation; but there are definitely markings like a small

constellation of scratches to one side in the middle elements which I am not happy with.

 

The overseas dealer has a 14 day return and refund pollicy, so I will be sending it back.

The question is because I am couriering it back insured it will cost at least GBP 40-60. Am

I in a position to ask that they re-imburse for the return shipping as well as their

description was incorrect/misleading? Had I known the glass had flaws I would not have

bought the lens.

 

I am aware at least on ebay that some sellers will give a return pollicy but the cost of

shipping back and customs is born by the buyer. What is fair practice in my situation?

 

Would like to hear from people with similar experiences..

[paul t]

Did you pay via PayPal? If you're returning an item because you're not happy,

but there's not a specific fault, you should pay at least return postage. If the

item is mis-described, they should pay return postage.

[tommy_baker]

The item was not bought on Ebay. But from a dealer on credit card. The lens was definitely

mis-described. It was advertised as "perfect clean lenses"

[lee hamiel]

I would insist on receiving a refund for shipping charges on your end as they clearly misrepresented the lens.

 

I bought a lens once from an older gentleman via mail who said the elements were dust free & clear with no fungus or haze. When I received the lens I could not believe the amount of dust & dirt internally - looked like a shake-up snow scene x-mas decoration.

 

He refunded all costs including my shipping & apologized that his eyesight was going & was very kind about the whole affair.

 

If they will not refund the shipping ask for something comparable to your fees like film, etc. - something safe.

 

Good Luck

[ben z]

I have a particular peeve against stores with a policy of not refunding the original shipping _plus_ making the customer pay out of his pocket to return items that were clearly misrepresented. Even if it's legal (and I'm not sure whether it is or not)I guarantee you if it happened to me it'd be the last time I ever bought from that store and lots of people would hear me bitch about it. Seems like the few bucks the stores "save" by ripping off their customers like that ends up costing them incalculable losses in future business. But I guess that's not how businesses think anymore. If it were my business I'd pay for return shipping, give the customer a full refund _and_ a personal apology from me the owner, and then I'd offer the employee who graded and sold the item a choice of having the shipping charges docked from his pay, or find a new job. But like I said, people don't seem to run their businesses like that anymore...no wonder people don't see any reason to patronize the small stores if they can save a buck at a big box.

[mskovacs]

If it costs less than double just to fix it, you may want to consider that instead. Are you certain that its separation?

 

If its an old enough lens to use balsam cement, then its unlikely that you will ever find one that is perfect. If you paid a big premium for a perfect lens, you might want to negotiate some sort of repair cost subsidy from the seller rather than a return.

[stephen_w.]

Obviously, it's not buyers regret, where the shipping cost is bourne by the buyer.

 

I sold a Konica RF, working properly (been to Konica six times for RF adjusments; quite fragile IMHO. It would go out of adjustment through the shipping process.) to a buyer on this forum and it arrived inoperable, with and electronic error message. We split the cost. Konica never more.

 

I would ask for a split of the return cost; seems reasonable to me, as one always takes a risk with sight unseen purchases. Even Rich Pinto (or associate) misdescribed an item he sent to me, given the volume of his business. I paid the return postage, as it was his terms clearly writen in his policy.

[david_bolduc]

It seems that you have gotten good advice already, but I figured I'd tell you my story too. I haven't had the best of luck buying used lenses on the web or sight unseen. I would say that of the lenses I've bought this way, at least 50% weren't as good as the owners described. Most of them were in worse shape then I saw in the photographs or were reported by the seller. In one instance I paid for an expensive macro lens that was reported to be in almost mint condition only to find out that the outer element was seperating. Fortunately, all the the sellers refunded my money and many of them paid for the return shipping. As for the macro lens, the seller gave it to me GRATIS. Believe it or not, this lens still takes fine pictures, though you wouldn't believe it looking at that two piece element. So, I say return the thing and ask for a full refund and return shipping. If the seller refuses to pay for the full postage, then offer to split the cost in half. Just get as much money as you can back and run! Then find a seller that is more local, and make sure of their return policy and their reputation. Good luck!

[albert knapp md]

You should ask for the complete refund for the courier fees.... but

be happy to accept 50%.

[stuart_richardson]

I would also suggest that you take photographs of the lens in the condition you received

it. It really helps things if you have documentation, that way they cannot do a bait and

switch on you if they are really trying to gouge you.

[h._p.]

If it was bought from a dealer in the UK then I believe that you are covered by the revised Sale of Goods Act which came in to force in April. My understanding is that, basically, it says that any fault is totally the responsibility of the seller who must cover all costs of return or repair, and it's the buyer's decision which to go for. The assumption is that any fault is the seller's responsibility and it is for the seller to prove otherwise. Of course, if you bought from outside the EU or from a private seller, you don't get this protection.

[doug_nelson1]

Even good folks like KEH don't always pay for the return shipping, even if the item is defective. You have to demand it, if you think you're right. In the case of Adorama, always ship insured, return receipt. They tried to deny ever having received my return, then did not answer several of my inquiries, and took a very long time processing my refund. After promising a return postage refund, it was later denied. What a stupid way to do business, to abuse the customer and expect him to come back.

[john_elder1]

The best way to deal with Adorama is not to. I actually had to go to NYC to get a full refund on a brand new defective lens. I have never dealt with them again. Adorama is the the worst of the worst.