New phone refund after price drop

Hi everyone,

I recently bought a new Samsung phone that is still within the 30 days returns period, but since buying it there is a new cashback offer that would save me around £40 on the phone. Unfortunately since having the phone a few light scratches have appeared on the screen I think as a result of being in my pocket with a credit card.

I would like your advice about whether you think I should return it to save £40, or whether to just stick with the phone given the hassle and the possibility that the scratches might impact how much is returned.

Any advice is appreciated!

Hey where did you buy the phone from ?
Instore / online / over the phone? Because that may actually have different return terms attached.

Online / over the phone - you should be covered by the distance selling regs (14 days to change your mind)

Store - normally they waive these rights (14 days) unless there’s a fault with the device again this totally depends on what company you purchased from.

Also with the scratches they may even reject the return like I said if no fault / malfunction is there??

Being the Christmas period they may also be extending their refund timescales so check that

Do you like the phone? If you didn’t want to go through all the hassle and there’s no issues with it, I’d probably leave it may be harder than you think for £40 discount really. Good luck! :smiley:

1 Like

Hey Scott, thanks for your reply :slight_smile: I bought it from the Samsung online shop which on their website states I have 28 days to return it. I’m still within this period so I can return the phone as a change of mind and get a refund.

I am happy with the phone, i’m just annoyed I could be missing out on £40!

1 Like

you could always return it on the basis you’re not happy it scratches so easily


I like this xD although could potentially backfire…

just dont buy the next one in the same shop

or if you do make sure you wear a false beard


Have you tried just contacting their support and asking if they can refund the £40?

Many online stores do this.

If they say no then you can say that you’ll return it instead.

1 Like

I won’t be buying it from Samsung again!

1 Like

I’ve tried it already they said I have to return it and they won’t refund the difference because the offer wasn’t in the promotional period. I am looking at buying it from someone else this time though so I suppose I could try with that

1 Like

Buy the new one and return it as if it was the old one. I’ve done this several times in Argos for example when I realised I haven’t used a voucher/etc after I’ve already opened and used the item. To be clear (since there was a misunderstanding) I am saying to return the new, untouched one as if it was the old one and to keep using the old one - the point of this is to simply get the money back from the original (more expensive) transaction since they’ve now got the same phone cheaper elsewhere.


Techically fraud, and you’re reliant upon no shipping delays, but certainly an ingenious way around the problem.


The problem with that is in some shops they print the IMEI of the phone on the receipt. Return the old for new and it won’t take them too long to realise what’s been done. Whatever they do next is up to them…


That’s fraud right there!

I’m disappointed to learn of such dishonesty.

Sorry, but this is incredibly dishonest, and I’m surprised people are even suggesting you return it. It’s now a second hand phone, in ‘good’ condition. Sure, you missed out on a deal, but prices change rapidly with tech items, and you can’t always know when best to buy something.


Buy a screen protector

Where is the fraud exactly? I bought a product and gave them back the exact same product (in the Argos case it was from the exact same store with the exact same clerk processing the new order and the return on the old one).

Maybe there’s a misunderstanding but I’m not advocating returning the used phone and passing it off as new - I’m recommending buying the same phone cheaper elsewhere and returning it to the old retailer which is absolutely fine provided they’re the same products (which seems like they are).

If we keep this reasoning then is using the voucher websites also fraud? Is optimizing cash back or credit card offers (like putting all your spending on the CC and only paying it off at the last day of the interest-free period) to maximise rewards also fraud? Is CASS’ing accounts to milk out the switching bonuses also fraud (given that technically you’re not intending to use the account)?

Maybe we shouldn’t feel bad about exploiting loopholes in their offers that are explicitly designed to exploit our weaknesses and temptations to make us consume more (because they definitely don’t feel bad about it). :wink:

Edit: this was just a misunderstanding, apologies to anyone for the somewhat heated reply.


I think the reason people question the motives behind it are simply the store you’re returning to is going to lose money. They can’t market the one again at it’s original price. Sure Argos can afford it, as can Samsung but what happens If it were a small independent retailer.

I wouldn’t argue it’s fraud but it’s certainly exploitation and dishonest.

1 Like

In your first post where you say:

Which is why I challenged you.

Yep, certainly a misunderstanding. Your comments appear to advocate buying the new one and returning it as if it were the old one, for those are your words?


Let’s stick to facts (law) rather than internet forum opinions.

What you are advocating is fraud. Specifically Fraud by False Representation as defined by Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

You commit the offence when you make a gain for yourself (shiny new phone), or expose another to a risk of loss (returning a used, scratched phone to the retailer as if it were the new one)

In the eyes of the law, such “dishonesty” is fraud.

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:

  • made a false representation
  • dishonestly
  • knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
  • with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.



You bought one item but you returned the other. It doesn’t matter that they’re both the same. It’s why my earlier comment described this as ‘techincally fraud’ - in your case, I added the ‘technically’ because you’re returning an item that is better than the other other one. But. It’s still fraud.

The exact same method you lay out could be used in this case: Buy an item, fuck it up beyond belief, buy a second item, return the first item as the second item and say “It was like this when I bought it, guv. I’m shocked you sold this to me. I’d like a refund.” No-one would dispute that is fraud. You’ve bought one item but returned the other.

The law doesn’t distinguish a good fraud from a bad fraud, unfortunately.

1 Like

You’ve got that the wrong way around, BTW. The shiny new phone purchased from retailer B would be returned to retailer A, purporting to be the used, scratched phone. The gain comes from retailer B’s price being lower than retailer A’s.

(That aside, you’ll note from my other replies that I’m agreement with you overall.)