[3GScottishUser]

From Mobile Today (17/11/2005):

[..]"3 has signed up Intec Cellular Services to run a stock reuse programme to cut its costs from 14-day returns. The operator will pay dealers £10 for returning handsets that can be reboxed and shipped as new, and will also pick up the tab for shipping.

The programme is designed to trim the amount of capital 3 has tied up in returned stock. Qualifying handsets must be in new condition, with a clear lifetime and no pictures or downloads. The kit will be repackaged and shipped back to retailers to sell within five days."

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/artman-test/publish/article_928.shtml

AFAIK the above practice is illeagal. It is unlawful to supply returned goods as new. Returns have to be supplied as pre-owned, reconditioned or ex-demonstartion, to pass off returns as new is in beach of the Trades Descriptions Act. Dixons Retail Group found themselves in trouble with this some years back when Trading Standards caught them selling electrical goods off as new that had been replaced under their 14 day returns period.

[Hands0n]

Quite correct indeed. IBM a few years back started selling refurbished product for "new" prices. But it was clearly stated in the Ts&Cs of sale that items may not be factory new and could be refurbished stock. But we are talking Mini and Mainframe computers here. I don't think anyone would get away with it buried in the Ts&Cs for retail goods.

That said, I would not have any difficulty with returned goods on the terms that are described above. "Clear lifetime" and no practical use of the handset makes it as factory new as is reasonable - providing that they are clearly being sold as returned goods.

[Ben]

I really don't think this is acceptable. If stock returned 'as new' can just be resold as if it were 'brand new' then where's the incentive for the store, operator and manufacturer to create a good user experience? Everyone involved can just keep selling the products over and over without having to worry (so much) about the costs involved by returns.

Three are addressing the symptom, not the problem. If they're receiving a high level of returns then they need to figure out why, not buff off any finger marks and try it on with another punter.

[3GScottishUser]

My thoughts exactly. This 'returns' issue must be pretty serious when a major company like Hutchison have to resort to what has been detailed above.

As soon as Trading Standards get a hold of this one they will be in very serious and embarrassing trouble and rightly so.

[mobile-doctor]

I can see where you are coming from, but if you go into any shop and you buy a 'table and chairs' then return it for some unknown reason then you have to think, they will be losing out of millions of pounds, i work for a shop and if some-one returns something, then they can, but we have to sell it on again to make the money back.