"Our policy is exchanges only after 14 days." "We don't offer cash refunds, only store credit." "You'll need to pay for the return postage yourself." A retailer's returns page is not the law — it's a policy the retailer wrote, and it can't override rights that Parliament actually gave you. The trouble is that two different UK consumer rights get routinely confused with each other, by shoppers and by the customer service scripts that shut them down, so it's worth being precise about which one applies to your situation.
Two different rights — don't mix them up
1. The 14-day cooling-off right (change of mind). Under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, when you buy online, by phone, or by mail order, you have 14 days from delivery to cancel for any reason — even if there's nothing wrong with the item — plus a further 14 days to actually send it back. This is the "I changed my mind" right, and it's specific to distance selling.
2. The 30-day right to reject faulty goods. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if what you bought is faulty, not fit for purpose, or doesn't match its description, you have a separate, stronger right to reject it for a full refund within 30 days of delivery — regardless of how you bought it, online or in person. This is the right that matters when a retailer's "returns closed after 14 days" policy doesn't apply to your situation at all, because your item is faulty, not just unwanted.
A retailer citing a 14-day policy at you when your product arrived broken is citing the wrong right entirely — the 30-day statutory right to reject faulty goods still applies.
What "satisfactory quality" actually requires
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets three minimum standards for everything you buy: goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. If any of these three fail within the first 30 days, you can reject the item outright for a full cash refund — the retailer cannot insist on a repair, a replacement, or store credit instead if you want your money back.
After 30 days: your rights don't disappear, they change shape
- 30 days to 6 months: the retailer gets one attempt at a repair or replacement first. If that fails, is impossible, or takes too long, you're entitled to a price reduction or a full refund. Crucially, the burden of proof is on the retailer during this window — the law presumes the fault was there at delivery unless they can prove you caused it.
- 6 months to 6 years: the same repair-or-replace process applies, but now you have to show the fault was present at delivery — which is harder, though not impossible, especially with an independent expert report for higher-value items.
Refunds must be paid without undue delay and, once the retailer agrees you're entitled to one, within 14 days. The retailer is also responsible for reasonable return postage costs on faulty goods — you shouldn't be out of pocket to send back something that was broken to begin with.
One exception worth knowing: digital content
Downloaded digital content — apps, games, streamed content, software — doesn't carry the same 30-day right to reject. If it's faulty, you can request a repair or replacement, and a price reduction (up to a full refund) if that isn't possible. Physical products with a digital component, like a smart TV with faulty software, do keep the normal 30-day right if the digital element is what's broken.
What to actually say to a retailer that pushes back
Put your rejection in writing — email is fine — and be specific rather than vague:
- State clearly that you are rejecting the goods under your statutory rights (the 30-day right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if within that window)
- State that you want a full refund, not store credit or a replacement, if that's what you want
- Ask for confirmation of the refund timeline — it's legally due without undue delay and within 14 days of them agreeing
- If they still refuse, mention that you're prepared to escalate to Trading Standards or dispute the charge with your card provider — but only as a next step if the direct request doesn't work, not as an opening threat