I returned a pair of €105 heels because they were too small. I did not wear or use them. Pole Junkie refused the refund after a small scratch was identified during their warehouse inspection and provided close-up photographs of the mark.
I do not dispute that the photographs show a mark. My concern is that the presence of the mark at the time of the return inspection was used as the basis for holding me responsible for it.
To date, I have not been provided with evidence showing that the shoes were free from the scratch before dispatch, that the mark could not have occurred during transit or subsequent handling, or that I caused it. The photographs establish the condition of the shoes when they were inspected, but not when or how the mark occurred.
Pole Junkie also noted that I had not reported the mark when I received the shoes. After paying to have the shoes returned to me and knowing exactly where to look, I could still hardly see the mark in person. When I originally received them, I simply opened the box, realised they were too small and returned them without wearing them.
I also paid additional postage to recover the shoes after being informed that they would otherwise be disposed of after two weeks. As we were unable to resolve the refund dispute directly, I have submitted the matter to the European Consumer Centre for assistance.
In my view, Pole Junkie should review its return policy and process so that responsibility for minor damage is not determined solely on the basis of the condition found during the return inspection, without considering when or how the damage may have occurred.
Based on my experience, I recommend photographing or filming expensive heels when they arrive and again immediately before returning them. This provides a record of their condition in case there is later a disagreement about damage identified during a return inspection.
