UK Retailers Accused of Breaking Refund Laws

Published: 15 September 2026.The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Several leading retailers in the United Kingdom are facing serious criticism after a consumer investigation found that some major online shops repeatedly failed to provide customers with refunds they may be legally entitled to when returning unwanted purchases.

An investigation by consumer organisation Which? found that a number of prominent retailers either failed to reimburse the original delivery charge, did not refund the cost of returned goods, or left customers facing unnecessary financial losses during the returns process. The findings have raised fresh concerns about whether some of the country’s biggest retailers are properly complying with consumer protection requirements governing online purchases.

Which? conducted a mystery-shopping investigation involving 12 shoppers across Great Britain. During June and July, the shoppers purchased more than 200 items from 17 major online retailers. They subsequently returned their purchases by post, which remains one of the most common methods used by customers to send unwanted goods back to retailers.

The investigation followed the entire returns process, including the amount customers had to pay to return products, the communication provided by retailers and, most importantly, whether shoppers eventually received the refunds they were entitled to receive.

John Lewis performed particularly strongly in the investigation. Mystery shoppers praised the retailer for providing information and updates throughout the returns process. Its performance was sufficiently strong for Which? to name it the first retailer to receive the organisation’s newly introduced recommended provider status for returns.

However, the results were considerably less positive for several other major retailers. Clothing and homeware chain Matalan was among those criticised after failing to refund customers correctly in a number of cases.

Matalan does not provide free returns for unwanted purchases. According to the Which? investigation, only seven of its 12 mystery shoppers received refunds for the products they returned. None of the shoppers received a refund for the original delivery charge they had paid when placing their orders.

One case highlighted by the investigation illustrated the potential financial impact on consumers. A shopper had purchased an item priced at £3.99 and paid an additional £3 for the original delivery. The customer then spent another £2.99 to return the item. When the expected refund did not arrive, the shopper was left £9.98 out of pocket, even though under the relevant consumer rules the customer should generally have been responsible only for the £2.99 return cost.

The investigation also uncovered problems with the practical handling of returns. One mystery shopper reportedly found that the returns label supplied with an order was so faded that its instructions could not be read. Such problems, although seemingly minor, can make the process more difficult for consumers and potentially contribute to delays or mistakes.

Which? retail editor Reena Sewraz said returning an online purchase should not become a struggle for customers attempting to recover their money. She argued that retailers have a responsibility to ensure their returns systems operate correctly and that consumers should not have to bear financial losses caused by retailers’ mistakes.

The concerns identified by Which? are particularly significant because UK consumer law provides specific protections for people purchasing goods online. Under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, online shoppers generally have the right to cancel an order within 14 days of receiving the goods if they change their minds. They normally have a further 14 days to return the products after notifying the retailer of their decision to cancel.

Once the returned goods have been received, retailers generally have to provide the relevant refund within 14 days, although there are circumstances in which different rules or exemptions apply. Certain products, including some personalised goods and items covered by hygiene restrictions, may not qualify for the standard cancellation right.

The rules also distinguish between the cost of returning an unwanted product and the original delivery charge. Retailers can generally require customers to pay the cost of returning unwanted goods, provided the customer was properly informed about that obligation. However, when a customer exercises the statutory right to cancel an online purchase, the retailer must normally reimburse the standard delivery charge originally paid.

Customers are not generally entitled to recover additional money paid for premium delivery services. If a shopper chooses an expedited or otherwise more expensive delivery option, the retailer normally only has to reimburse the amount corresponding to the standard delivery service.

Despite these requirements, Which? found that River Island and Sports Direct failed to reimburse the original delivery fee in any of the cases tested by the consumer organisation. Both retailers also charge customers for returning unwanted products. The combination of return fees and missing delivery refunds therefore created significant financial losses for some mystery shoppers.

Sports Direct disputed the basis on which it could comment on the individual cases. A company spokesperson said the retailer had asked Which? for basic order information so that it could investigate the specific transactions but had not been provided with what it considered necessary details. The company said it remained willing to address genuine customer concerns.

River Island was approached for a response to the findings.

The Which? investigation also discovered problems extending beyond delivery charges. In some cases, retailers failed to refund the price of the products themselves after customers had returned them.

Pets at Home was one of the companies highlighted. According to Which?, only six of the 12 mystery shoppers who returned products to the retailer received refunds for the goods they had sent back.

Pets at Home said it regularly reviews its policies and the information available on its website to ensure that customers have access to clear and accessible guidance about its terms and conditions. The retailer also encouraged customers with questions or concerns to contact the company directly.

The findings have consequently intensified concerns over the effectiveness of consumer protection rules in the rapidly expanding online retail sector. While digital shopping has made it easier for consumers to purchase products from retailers across the country, returning unwanted goods can sometimes become complicated, particularly when customers have to deal with postage costs, unclear instructions and delayed or incomplete refunds.

The investigation also highlighted limitations in comparing every major retailer under exactly the same conditions. M&S, for example, was not included in the mystery-shopping assessment for certain purchases because it did not offer postal returns for online orders below £10 when customers checked out as guests. Those customers instead had to return their purchases to a physical store.

Argos was also excluded from the relevant postal-return assessment because it did not provide postal returns under the circumstances examined by Which?.

For consumers, the investigation serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the terms attached to online purchases and retaining evidence of returns. However, the responsibility for complying with statutory consumer protections ultimately rests with retailers.

The Which? findings suggest that the problem may not simply be about individual mistakes or isolated transactions. Repeated failures across multiple mystery-shopping cases raise broader questions about whether some retailers’ systems are adequately designed to process cancellations and refunds in accordance with consumer law.

As online shopping continues to form a major part of everyday consumer activity in Britain, efficient and legally compliant returns systems are becoming increasingly important. Customers who cancel eligible purchases should not have to repeatedly contact retailers or absorb costs that consumer protection rules require businesses to reimburse.

The investigation places additional pressure on major retailers to examine their refund procedures, improve communication with customers and ensure that their systems accurately process both product and delivery refunds. For shoppers, the findings underline a wider concern: the right to return an unwanted online purchase is only meaningful when customers can actually receive the money they are legally entitled to recover.