I ordered a backpack from Simplify living Australia who has a 14 days return policy, Business address in Brisbane. I recieved the backpack, and the quality was flimsy and one of the zippers came apart.
I send an email to have it returned. The reply is that a 40% discount was offered and I could keep the bag or if I still wanted to return it, I have to pay the postage myself. However, the return address was in China! I paid 76,- dollar for the bag, with 40% discount still to much, postage is as much as the discount.
Be aware of this company! Iâd love to take this further but donât know how.
âSimplify Livingâ quotes its business address as âLevel 18, 324 Queen Street, Brisbane City
4000, QLD, Australiaâ. It is worth noting that this address is listed as being a virtual office. This means the business doesnât have a physical address and could be located anywhere. My guess is overseas somewhere, possibly China.
Simplify Living is one of a number under the parent company âHope E-Commerce Enterprises Pty Ltdâ. A quick search, others I have found are:
âSimplify Livingâ also has registered domains for the UK, US, Canada and New Zealand. For these, when one uses the link, they are forwarded to the .au domain.
It is unlikely you will get resolution from the company, particularly if they are located overseas as indicated above. They seem to have a similar online presence to these businesses raised elsewhere in the community:
Their website raises a number of red flags. These being only stock photos are used, no contact phone number/all communications by email, address is for a virtual office/not a physical address and claims to have been seen on Better Homes and Gardens, Forbes, Buzzfeed, Apartment Therapy and Inc. The later is surprising for a business which is not that old and on many non-Australian platforms. I was unable to substantiate these claims.
If you paid by credit card or PayPal, raise a chargeback/dispute. Hopefully this is successful and you receive a refund using this method.
It is possibly also a lesson to learn. There are many dodgy online businesses which advertise online (esp. social media) and are more interested in taking a consumerâs money than providing quality products or service.
Sorry, but it is not a âscamâ. It is simply the realitity of buying goods from online sites.
There are very many sites out there that donât actually do anything except take orders and then ship goods from overseas. Quite often China.
One needs to look very closely at the returns policy because one agrees to those conditions. And shipping back to China is often required. Because that is the source.
I just donât understand why people buy from these importer sites. But they do.
Hi Gregr, the reason why I called it a scam is that the site went throug trouble to make it appear Australian. On the return policy it had an Australian adres and it is called Simplify Livin Australia .com.au ending. You are right I should have looked into it better, but if you are misleading buyers, Iâd call it a scam.
Thank you for your message. I know there is not much to do other then to make other people aware. And you are right, the backpack was not cheap!
Lesson learned!
There are a number of statements on the website that imply a local presence âŠ
I wonder where did the product ship from? within Australia or from overseas?
goes on to say:
To what address do we ship?
We only ship within Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK & USA at this time.
âwithinâ not âtoâ ⊠its not concrete but implied fairly strongly they are doing business internally âŠ
The same page lists an Australian phone number, albeit a mobile, and a .com.au email address - which requires an ABN according to AuDA, and yes, the page lists the ABN. While none of these elements are definitively robust it does imply one could possibly cause them some unrest by lodging complaints with the relevant authorities in each case ⊠whether this means someone will be ultimately accountable under ACL is debatable though.
Also mentioned on the same page:
Orders that are damaged or inaccurate
Have you received your package successfully, but it was damaged or the wrong things were delivered? Kindly contact us with your order number, take pictures of the issue, and provide a concise description of whatâs wrong.
One could try for a replacement? Sometimes this doesnât require a return âŠ
⊠doesnt list a return address, so itâs hard to say one agreed to anything. Terms of service are nebulous from my quick read.
says:
Some of our products are located and shipped from within Australia, while others are shipped from China. Which of our warehouses we ship your products from can vary based on stock levels and demand. For full transparency, our products are not made in Australia and are generally made in China, this ensures you get the best products at the best possible prices.
⊠also implies they have more of an Australian presence than just a serviced office, but again somewhat nebulous. If your product shipped from an Australian warehouse you could try returning it there, but it seems likely they have this serviced as well and it would still cost.
I didnât say this company wasnât Australian. They seem to be. I said they were an order taking setup with a swish website. They donât make any of the products they sell. Nor do they have any âbricks and mortarâ physical presence where goods could be looked at.
So buyer beware. There are many other posts on this site about the same problems with these online only sites.
Assume you mean chargeback. A reversal of the payment.
Well in this case I would believe that the card issuer wouldnât even consider this to meet the criteria for a chargeback, and on the merchant / seller side completely defensible as the goods ordered were shipped and received, a remedy offered, and return of goods has been declined.
As the merchant isnât complying with Australian Laws in relation to major problems with a product they sold, there is grounds to lodge a chargeback with oneâs card issuer.
If one can mount a case that a refund should be given under Australian Law (regulations), which in this case should be easy as @Susan24 has been corresponding with the seller, the success of a chargeback increases. It appears from information posted that the merchant acknowledges the product has a major problem as they have made a offer, albeit unacceptable, to try and placate the complaint about the faulty product. This includes making the consumer pay for postage return (which contravenes the ACL where a fault exists) and also offering a discount to future purchases (rather than a refund, replacement or repair as required under the Australian Consumer Law).
The same applies for lodging a dispute with PayPal if this was the method of payment.
Well if the OP went to their card issuer to pursue a chargeback, and it was ultimately successful, then I will stand corrected.
Until then, I donât see where the criteria exists.
Also, bear in mind that under the ACL, the seller has the right to inspect the goods before deciding on a remedy. One cannot just keep the faulty or âflimsyâ goods and claim the money back. And is the failure of one of a number of zippers a major or a minor fault? Could it be simply fixed for less than the cost of return?
Who bears the cost of a return? That depends on whether or not a fault is found. And the seller has the right to determine that by inspection.
From above, the seller in this case has indicated the buyer can keep the faulty goods. The seller is required under the Australian Consumer Law to provide a remedy. This is a repair, replacement or refund. The seller is unwilling to offer a remedy in accordance with the ACL.
Unlikely, the cost to post the item, unpick/dismantle part of the bag, remove a zip and replace it, with return postage will be uneconomic. This is possibly why the seller said to keep it. Keeping it doesnât resolve the fault as one still has a faulty product in their possession.
They can confirm a fault by many means, returning it is one option. It isnât mandatory.
Something like a broken zip can be seen through photos rather than sending a bag to China to be assessed. The seller appears to acknowledge there is a problem, is unwilling to acknowledge resolution required by the ACL and is trying to placate the issue by offering unacceptable remedies, hoping the buyer goes away.
Requiring it to be sent back to China, paid for by the consumer, is unacceptable and is done to try and prevent further action to be taken. This is done so they can the seller can keep the consumerâs hard earned cash, while the consumer is left with a faulty, potentially unusable, product.
I provided links to AFCA and clear information in my previous post, for grounds for a credit card chargeback/PayPal dispute. From the information provided, there are sufficient grounds, which meets those outlined by AFCA, to make such a request.
As the seller appears unwilling to meet their requirements under the ACL, a credit card chargeback/PayPal dispute is the appropriate course of action. A consumer shouldnât be responsible for wearing the cost of receiving a faulty product and why actions available to the consumer need to be carried out.
That may be so. But the best information on chargebacks comes from the parties involved in the process. The card issuers, the card merchants, and the card networks themselves.
It can be quite instructive to read online information from the merchant side on how sellers can protect themselves from spurious and unwarranted chargebacks. And in some cases, fraudulent customers.
Not imputing anything. Just looking at the chargeback process from the multistep one it is. It is not as simple as some seem to believe and promote.
Again, I donât see how a chargeback would succeed given what the OP has posted. But hey, give it a go. Be prepared to put some time and effort into building a case.
Having a business ourselves, I am fully aware of the processes of chargebacks and what assessment are done by merchants and the financial sector to prevent chargebacks.
I am also aware of grounds for chargebacks, and what grounds can be pursued by consumers to seek redress, for problems which can occur and arenât resolved by a business. Some of these are outlined on the AFCA website and one includes the problems identified above. Our own merchant bank provides detailed information on chargebacks which is consistent with the information provided by AFCA.
Being a business owner, we take specific measures to prevent chargebacks (including fraudulent ones). Such measures were adopted in response to consultation with our merchant banker.
The responses by the seller in question provides @Susan24 with the opportunity to lodge a chargeback/dispute. I canât say whether the chargeback/dispute will be successful as each request is assessed separately and based on the information supporting the request.
What I can say is that if our own business took the approach shown by the seller, there is a risk that a chargeback may be successful as there is sufficient grounds for a consumer to lodge a chargeback. The grounds for the chargeback are reasonable and there is sufficient evidence to support a chargeback request.
This is why I recommended that @Susan24 lodge a chargeback/dispute.
As a business owner, you understand the issues around chargeback then.
That is good. But the majority do not.
It is not a given that one can simply go the chargeback route if not happy with a purchase, and succeed.
And I donât see it as helpful advice to promote that route as a solution to a problem about a returns policy and who pays.
The issue has nothing to do with not being happy with a purchase. The main problem is the backpack had a fault, that being âthe zippers came apartâ. This isnât a change in mind, but a fault which falls under the ACL.
As outlined above,
This is grounds for a chargeback as outlined by AFCA.
If it was a change in mind, a chargeback is unlikely to be successful.
Well actually it is. The issue was that the bag was âflimsyâ and a zip at some point had a problem, which may or may not have been easily fixed. This was not what the OP was expecting, and wanted to return the bag and get a refund.
So the complaint is having to pay for sending the bag back to some place in China, rather than some expected place in Australia. As per the returns policy.
So unless the OP wants to add further to the issue, it is about âreturn policy requires sending goods back to Chinaâ.
That is addressed in the ACL under quality as well as a product failure, despite the lack of clear definitions in much of the ACL and the absence of a date and time stamp regarding delivery and the zip failure. Potential remedies were presented to take or leave. Your comment
however this is neither a magistrates court nor civil tribunal. The Community is a place to seek and receive constructive advice and opinions, yours being one. You may file the topic any way you wish, including
The advice provided is in accordance with the ACL even though your personal interpretation is at odds.
There are other topics reflecting âscamsâ or âbusiness modelsâ (depending on oneâs viewpoint) of the return having to be posted to a loading dock in China, as well as a few additional and related topics linked into it.
Since there seems little else to add as advice was sought and provided as how one might proceed, this topic is closed for now. When/should @Susan24 wish to add information about her experience and outcomes, or lack thereof, the topic will re-open in 10 days.
