It depends on what they say and the reason for the return. If you are returning goods due to a breach of contract, such as faulty goods or not as described, then the seller is obliged to pay for the return of goods. Any term saying otherwise is invalid. If you are returning goods under the cancellation period afforded (that is, for a change of mind or "cooling off"), then it depends on what the seller states. The contract should make it clear who is responsible for the cost of returning the item. If it does not say, then it is the seller who is responsible. Just to carry on what you were saying about musical instruments, etc. It is a requirement of the DSRs that consumers take reasonable care with goods bought by distance (if they are seeking to return). At the same time, sellers cannot apply any conditions that are incompatible with the DSRs. They CAN, however, state what is reasonable care so long as it does not impact on the ability to inspect goods. With ear-rings, for example, many online traders state that they cannot be returned for hygiene reasons. Now the DSRs make no allowance for the resaleability of goods - it's simply tough luck on the seller, so such a T&C would be worthless. In this case with earrings, a seller can say, for example, that protective covering on the stud (the bit that goes into the ear) be left on for it to be returned as a change of mind. Hope that helps

That's the impression. When I finally got a word in, I explained that I had not been unemployed for 6 months or more, as is the main criteria. She said not to worry as there were exeptions (such as disability, carers etc). When she said they were checking the postcode, I gave her the one that the job is for. She said that it was my postcode they were checking. Seeing as I do not come under any of the other exceptions, I can only presume that people who live in a postcode area where there is high unemployment / poverty qualify. Could be completely wrong, but if they actually encouraged people to do this it may get more people back into work. I'm not interested about expenses or keeping benefit, I just want to show an employer that I am employable, as I am sure many people do. I'd even pay THEM if I had to. Why they should have this 6 month thing is beyond me. I think it's backwards. They would be better off putting it at, say, 8 weeks and save a damned load of money by helping people get a job ASAP rather than wait 6 months before helping.

Here's me credit card love. Go and buy yourself a neck

Now I AM annoyed! Just applied for a job and the application asked "are you elligible for Work Trial?". Not knowing, I called the Job Centre. After 5 minutes of explaining i to me (despite me telling them I knew what it was and just wanted to know if I was elligible) I got a "Yeah, I think so". After trying for confimation I was eventually told yes, apparently because of my postcode(?). Thanks for letting me know beforehand so I could actually TRY it and maybe have had a job before now...

Greggs is one step below Maccies to me. Wouldn't eat anything from there if I was paid for it

Sorry, but I find things like that disgusting. When there are people who struggle to afford any kind of breakfast, gluttony like that is completely unjustified. But my brother would probably demolish that lot with time to spare...

Is the bloke saying "I've got plastic but no rubber"?

Just on a more practical point, do you get any benefit from them picking it up, such as a discount on the price? If not, councils sometimes pick them up for you, or better still, if the machine is still working, I am sure a charity would appreciate it and will have volunteers who can collect it for you.

Do you have proof of the cancellation? Such as recorded delivery or any correspondence resulting from the letter?

The difference in statements would have to be pretty significant and material for the insurer to do this. For them to say "pursue this and we will take you to court" is pathetic. If they suspect fraud, they should be voiding your policy and possibly taking legal action anyway. As well as the above SAR, I would put a complaint in writing to demand that they either justify their statement and release the informaton that they claim is fraud. You might find this an interesting read: aspects of insurance fraud - 41

Basically, they will use guides like Glass's Guide, as well as looking at examples, if any, in the likes of autotrader. They should not offer you an amount less than what you can buy a similar model for without good cause. Do you have documentation to hand - MOTs, servicing, photos etc, as these will help if there is a dispute.

Interesting. The reason for what I said is as follows (from OFT guidance on DSRs): What is an auction? 2.16 Whether something is an auction depends on how the selling process occurs and whether the contract is concluded at an auction. An auction has no statutory definition but is generally held to be a manner of selling property by bids, usually to the highest bidder, by public competition, and has a number of characteristics, including: n a unique item or collection of items for sale n each bid being an offer to buy n the auction ending in a pre-arranged manner, such as on the fall of a hammer or the expiry of a deadline, after which bids are no longer accepted, and n the winning bidder being bound by contract to pay for the items. 2.17 How a contract is concluded determines whether the method of sale is an auction and so falls outside the DSRs. Fixed price sales, including ‘buy it now’ type transactions on internet auction sites, are covered by the DSRs because such sales are not concluded by auction. I am more than happy to stand corrected on this one

The OFT's guidance though classifies it as an auction and provides guidance on what an auction is. It specifically uses the example that "buy it now" is not classed as an auction. Would like to see anything that can be used though to get out of the auction thing!

It depends on the contract. And with auctions, even other rights are reduced.

You may be better off with just the report. The seller may argue that he was not given the chance to rectify himself (untrue as it may be).

Buy it now does not count as an auction, so the DSRs DO apply to them. If it is an auction, it does not matter whether or not the seller is a private individual or a business - DRSs do not apply.

Not too sure about normal practice - most of my experience is in motor. The reason why I said to "remind" them of the details is so that they cannot moan they were waiting for info. If they do not have all the information required, they should have advised you ASAP, not wait for you to chase up.

I think its common practice to cancel policies when no NCD has been received, though it would be better all round for the insurer to chase it or charge additional premiums whilst waiting. I think you have been treated unfairly, and i also think the FOS would agree.

Oh and you can bet they will all have the prices increased right on time, and not a few weeks later like they did when the VAT was reduced!

Not to be fickle, but I don't think the price increases by 2.5% - we had all this when they went down! But it's estimated that the taxman is £1 billion short in terms of the reduction of VAT. How much will businesses make when they increase the price by an amount greater than the VAT increase rate? A good few pennies, methinks.

I'd email again and remind them that they are obliged to provide the refund as soon as possible and within 30 days of the cancellation. The OFT's guidance (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf) at 3.46 states: [A refund must be made] as soon as possible after the consumer cancels, and in any case within 30 days at the latest. You must refund the consumer’s money even if you have not yet collected the goods or had them returned to you by the consumer. You cannot insist on the goods being received by you before you make a refund. The legislation (Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 state at r. 14(3): The supplier shall make the reimbursement referred to in paragraph (1) as soon as possible and in any case within a period not exceeding 30 days beginning with the day on which the notice of cancellation was given. I'd accept no excuses.

Puresolo looks promising?

Try Googling "classical music" "Karaoke". There are quite a few search results

They will look at the market value and then say "but it has had repairs and is therefore worth less than the market value". Like I said, they have to justify it, though. It's a while since I last worked in insurance, so I may be a bit out of date. Maybe someone else can come along and advise.