Major retailers under scrutiny over incomplete online-return refunds

A large mystery-shop investigation has found well-known online retailers failing to return all the money customers were owed. In some cases the goods themselves were not refunded. In others, the original standard delivery charge quietly disappeared from the calculation.

Which? sent 12 mystery shoppers across Great Britain to buy and return more than 200 items from 17 major online retailers during June and July 2026. The shoppers returned the goods by post and recorded the cost, communication, timing and accuracy of each refund.

The results, reported on 15 September, showed striking failures. Matalan refunded the returned item to only seven of the 12 shoppers and none received the original delivery fee. Pets at Home refunded the goods in six of 12 cases. River Island and Sports Direct reportedly failed to repay the original delivery fee in every case tested.

Those are the findings from the transactions tested, not a conclusion that every return handled by those businesses is wrong. Matalan said it wanted to examine the individual cases, Sports Direct said it had asked Which? for the order details, and Pets at Home said it regularly reviewed its policies and customer guidance.

At the other end of the table, John Lewis was praised for keeping shoppers informed throughout the return and became the first retailer to receive Which?'s recommended-provider status for returns. Amazon also performed strongly in the wider published results. The contrast shows that incomplete refunds are not an unavoidable feature of online shopping.

Regulation 34 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 requires the trader to reimburse payments received from the consumer, including the cost of delivery. Where the shopper chose a more expensive delivery method, the retailer may limit that part of the refund to the cost of its least expensive common delivery option.

Suppose an item cost £40. Standard delivery was £3.99, but you selected next-day delivery for £7.99. If you cancel the whole order under the statutory rules, the normal refund would be £43.99: the item price plus the basic delivery amount. The additional £4 paid for next-day delivery can be excluded.

The position can be different where only part of a multi-item order is returned. If you keep other items and the same delivery charge would have applied to them, the original delivery fee may remain payable. Before challenging a partial-return calculation, check how the order and delivery charge were structured.

The cost of delivering the original order to you is not the same as the cost of sending an unwanted item back. A retailer can normally require the consumer to pay the direct return cost if it supplied the required information before the contract was made.

That means a lawful return charge does not cancel out the duty to repay the basic outbound delivery fee. The two amounts should appear separately in the calculation. If the retailer failed to tell you that you would bear the return cost, regulation 35 may prevent it from passing that cost to you.

For a sales contract, reimbursement must be made without undue delay and normally no later than 14 days after the retailer receives the goods back. If the consumer supplies evidence of sending them before that, the 14-day period can run from the earlier evidence date. A warehouse backlog does not rewrite the statutory timetable.

The retailer should normally use the same payment method used for the purchase unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise. Store credit should not simply replace money that is due. A deduction for diminished value is possible where the consumer handled the goods beyond what was reasonably necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning, but it should be explained rather than applied as an unexplained adjustment.

The cooling-off rules apply when a consumer cancels a covered online purchase without needing to show a fault. Goods that are faulty, damaged, not as described or unfit for purpose engage the separate remedies in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

This distinction matters when a returns portal describes every case as an ordinary return. If the product does not conform to the contract, say so clearly. The retailer should not rely on a voluntary returns window, deduct ordinary return postage or treat the complaint as though you simply changed your mind.

Do not ask the retailer simply to “check the refund”. Set out the calculation. State what you paid, what you returned, when you communicated cancellation, when the parcel was sent or received and the exact amount still missing.

If the retailer does not correct the refund, preserve its final response. A chargeback may be available through a card issuer or payment provider, subject to scheme rules and time limits. Section 75 may apply to a qualifying credit-card purchase where the cash price meets the statutory limits. Citizens Advice can also give practical consumer help and pass relevant intelligence to Trading Standards.

Returns systems are heavily automated, but the legal responsibility remains with the retailer. If the system routinely omits delivery charges, loses returned items or pays the correct amount only after a complaint, automation is not an answer. It is the process that needs correcting.

A missing £3 or £4 delivery charge can be easy to overlook on one order. Repeated across a large customer base, the effect is very different. Consumers should not have to know the wording of regulation 34 before receiving money that should have been included automatically.

For the wider legal position, see ConsumerWise guidance on refunds and returns and delivery problems.