I would appreciate an unbiased view about whether I was been unreasonable with a matter that I felt I was been reasonable about.
I bought an item off ebay, when it arrived it wasn't what it had been described as, I contacted the seller and asked to return it. They have said they would refund approximately 75% of the purchase cost including their postage to me, with me paying the return postage cost, and are not convinced that what I have said is true about the item.
I bought a VAM green plastic beret which was described as a Royal Marine item missing the badge. The seller had quite a lot of VAM stuff so I assumed it was a fellow enthusiast / collector so knew what they were on about.
In the ebay auction photographs the shade of green did look dark, but when the item arrived it isn't as dark at it appeared and is the accessory card lighter green one (of which I have a few spare myself).
I messaged the seller to say it wasn't the RM one, so could I return it. They replied saying that they are not convinced it isn't a RM one as they came in various shades, but will give me a 75% refund of what I paid if I post it back to them.
I have offered to pay the postage back if they give me 100% of what I paid. The sums of money involved are relatively minor, I would probably be a fiver out of pocket if I accepted the 75% offer and paid the postage, but why should I be out of pocket at all?
I thought it was a reasonable compromise for me to pay the postage back which would be a couple of quid.
What's your view?