Is Dixons wrong not to let me return a laptop I don't want?

I wish to return a refurbished HP Pavilion laptop I bought online from Dixons on 1 July. Having seen it, I do not like it.

I contacted Dixons and was told that I couldn’t send it back for a refund using the protection of the Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs) because I had used it. However, I have used it merely to see how well it works.

If I can’t switch it on and see how it performs, how am I supposed to make a judgment on whether I want it or not?
Shahid Bashir

We believe that Dixons is wrong in refusing to take back the laptop under the DSRs and contacted the company about this. It is clear that the company has got some of the rules of this consumer law completely wrong.

What has now turned out to be a matter of conjecture however, is the retailer’s interpretation of the words ‘use’ and ‘examination’.

Dixons pointed out that the Government’s guidance on the DSRs says “customers had to take ‘reasonable care’ of the product if they wish to return it”.

This is correct and we have no quarrel with that statement. However, Dixons then told us that this duty of care was “to ensure that the returned goods could be sold again ‘as new’. This also means that goods must be returned in their original packaging”.

This statement is incorrect. In fact the DSRs clearly state the opposite. Dixons should know that the DSRs do “not link cancellation rights with a supplier’s ability to resell items as new”.

We now come to the stumbling block. What constitutes a fair examination and what would be unfair use, meaning the customer no longer has the right to reject?

The buyer is allowed to examine goods as they would in a shop. This means they may, as part of the examination, switch on the laptop and see how it works and whether they like it, which is the only thing Mr Bashir claims he has done with the laptop.

We are still negotiating this case on Mr Bashir’s behalf after more than four weeks but will update you when we hear from Dixons again. It may be a case for a judge to rule on the legal interpretation of the wording in the small claims court.