Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post #415 you said you were unable to sell it yourself. Earlier I believe you said there had been expressions of interest, but only if the buyer could acquire the freehold title. I wonder if the situation with the existing freeholders is such that the property is really unattractive, in ways possibly not obvious to someone who also has an interest in and acts for the freeholders.
    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Ebay, Distance Selling Regs and Postage


HappyMonday
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5623 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all...

 

Been a while since I've posted here. I hope your all as helpful as I've found it in the past.

 

I recently bought an item on Ebay for £79.99 plus £12.66 postage + insurance.

 

Item was arguably not as described, and certainly would've been unacceptable to me if I were buying it from a shop, but being a kind soul I decided to 'change my mind' and request a refund under the terms of the distance selling regulations cooling off period (in this case, the period allowed for this would've been three months as the seller hasn't specified anything returns policy wise that I could find) rather than going through an 'item not as described' Paypal buyer protection claim.

 

I specified consistently throughout correspondence that I'm unhappy with the state of the item as received etc, and requested that the seller agree to cover the costs of my returning the item.

 

This request was ignored as you can imagine, and since I wasn't greatly fussed about the return postage I returned the item as 'a gesture of goodwill' (as opposed to making them collect it), still harping on about how I should be refunded for the cost of the postage etc.

 

I've now received a refund of the £79.99 original payment, but the seller is under the impression he doesn't have to refund the original postage amount either...Specifically...

 

"Item dispatched by request via express courier so postage cannot be refunded under distant selling regulation. Item returned unwanted,"

 

I've found an approximately equal amount of support and derision of this stance online, though how my agreement to accept dispatch via courier absolves the seller of refunding me the costs of said courier is completely beyond me. Sellers seem to draw the distinction between services and goods when referring to postage etc.

 

This is not the impression that consumers are given by Ebay, or indeed by a number of government sources online.

 

Can anybody clarify the position I'm in before I escalate the dispute?

Debt free, partially thanks to CAG forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet auction sites are excempt from the distance selling regulations, however if it was from a trader then your are covered under statutory rights and SOGA applies. If a private sale then you are not covered unless it was misrepresented in some way. Postage is not normally refundable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is very clear, the seller is liable to refund postage. It's harsh but clear.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

raydetinu is partially correct. Auction sites are not covered by DSR's, and in my experience even 'Buy It Now' on eBay is a grey area. BUT if item is not as described - then whether Auction or not - the seller is responsible for postage.

 

The only time seller is not responsible for postage is if the buyer just changes his mind.

 

If the seller is a business trader, then I would get his exact details, write him an LBA, demanding cost of postage for the LBA, and sue him for the postage plus interest at 8% per annum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this everyone, I think this one will have to go unchallenged. The faults with the item are too unsubstantial for me to start getting heavy about it, and if Buy It Now on Ebay is a grey area too then we're talking serious holes in the argument.

 

However, Ebay claim that Buy It Now is definitely covered -

 

"The Distance Selling Regulations apply to items purchased via Buy It Now listings and Second Chance Offers on eBay.co.uk. However, they don't apply to auction format listings on eBay.co.uk,".

 

I should've approached this as a defective item etc, and I didn't because I assumed any costs related to the transaction were also covered under DSR return rights. This was stupid, but this information is not made clear in the Ebay help for consumers quoted above, or in the other government sourced information I accessed.

 

Might write something complaining in this respect to those it may concern.

Edited by HappyMonday

Debt free, partially thanks to CAG forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Robert Harpers benefit, some of the sites I accessed are to be found below ;

 

Legal Guidance for Business Sellers

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

 

Distance Selling Regulations - BERR

 

 

All I can say is, I thought that the seller is liable for both sets of postage if I chose to change my mind and I was doing them a favour not getting heavy about my return postage - Quoth Ebay's guidance for businesses on the matter ;

 

"Under the Distance Selling Regulations, buyers have a period of 7 working days after the date of delivery within which they can cancel the contract (often referred to as the "cooling off" period) and get their money back, including the original postage and packing charges. You must refund the original delivery charges. However, you are permitted to require the buyer to pay for the cost of returning the item, but only if you clearly inform the buyer of this before the contract is made.," -

 

I'm now out both, and it seems from a lot of the internet information that buyers are not as well covered as it at first seems.

Edited by HappyMonday
Clarity

Debt free, partially thanks to CAG forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...