Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Annoying Twit

DSR and refund of outward postage

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3878 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've looked into the DSRs, and also into the T&Cs of various online music retailers. I've noted that the two almost always don't match.

 

For example, it is almost universal that if you return something under the DSRs, the seller will not refund the outwards postage. But the advice I've seen on Trading Standards' site says that outwards postage should be refunded. Also, some retailers will say that you can only return instruments if they are unopened and/or untouched. Musical instruments are not software or CDs/DVDs etc., and not being able to open the box/packaging will prevent you from evaluating the instrument as you would be able to do in a shop.

 

I know that both of these types of T&Cs are incorrect. That's not what I'm asking .

 

What I wish to ask is how shops get away with not following the DSRs properly? I'm sure if I did wish to return something under the DSRs, and the shop refused to refund the outwards carriage costs. I could then remind them of their responsibilities under the DSRs, contact Trading Standards, etc. But, shouldn't we have a situation where shops should have T&Cs consistent with the DSRs, or "somebody" does "something" about it?

Edited by Annoying Twit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Thanks for the reply. But I'm not talking about the cost of return postage, it's the cost of outwards postage I'm talking about.

 

Here's an example.

 

You buy a guitar for £130 ticket price. You pay £12 delivery, price to you, £142.

 

Upon receiving the guitar, you try it out, and find that the frets were finished by a baboon. You don't want this guitar. It's not faulty, just a bad guitar that plays badly.

 

You return the guitar paying another £10 for return delivery. The shop then only refunds you the original £130 purchase price. They don't refund your return postage, which is proper if they have stated this in their T&Cs, which most do. I have no problem with that. But, they don't refund the outward postage of £12 either. This contravenes the DSRs, according to the advice provided by TS. But nearly all online music shops have T&Cs which say they won't refund outward postage (as well as return postage), and I've checked this with some of them by email, and confirmed it.

 

There's another shop where all items have "free delivery". But, if you return an item under the DSRs, they say that they will deduct £10 from the purchase price when refunding, as while delivery is "free", it isn't to them. So, you buy a guitar at £150, decide you don't like it, send it back paying an extra £10, but only get refunded £140.

Edited by Annoying Twit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, I read your post incorrectly. They are obliged to refund ALL costs, including delivery and cannot in any way or at any time refuse to do so.

 

The legislation refers to "any sum paid by or on behalf of the consumer under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom it was made". The OFTs guidance makes it clear, not that it should be needed to be, that this includes postage.

 

Report it to Consumer Direct. They should pass it on to the company's homa authority TS dept who will in turn, hopefully, tell them to change the wording. In terms of taking any action, it is a civil matter and therefore down to you. I can do a letter if you like for you to send to them, but it may be a case of taking them to court for it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem to solve at the moment, but am interested in the general situation. Fundamentally, since I know what the T&Cs are, if I buy I'll pretty much accept that I won't get my full rights. As £10 isn't enough to be worth fighting over.

 

However, the general situation is of more interest. I would prefer that online stores did have to fulfill the requirements of the law. Firstly because I think people should have the right to try things and send them back. And because retailers should take some of the financial risk when items are sent back under the DSRs, because that is likely to make them more careful concerning what they send out. I've certainly heard stories where damaged and defective goods have been sent out, e.g. network routers in an open box with somebody's private settings already on them. OK, that's faulty goods. But with acoustic and electric (not electronic) instruments, it's not just a "works", "doesn't work" situation. There are issues of workmanship and setup, which means that a guitar that fundamentally works, might, fundamentally, suck. If there was more of a risk for an online retailer to send out a poor instrument, they might be more careful.

 

Secondly, I've read that the DSRs gave quite a few rights to the consumers to even the playing field between online and bricks 'n mortar retailers to a degree. In the musical instruments business, local shops around me have been going out of business, and those that survive charge much, much, more than online prices as they need to have a decent margin to make up for a smaller volume of sales but the same overheads as before. Although, I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. Even if they slapped an extra 100% of the outward postal charges onto prices, that's still only a tenner, where an in-store price for a small independent retailer can often be a hundred more or so. Of course, if more risk means they spent more time checking instruments out before sending them, that might add a bit more on the cost. But not all instruments come back, I've heard return rates are low. So the additional cost might be less than it first appears.

 

Reporting it to consumer direct is worth a try, so I'll give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really a matter of having rules and having the ability to enforce them. There is no point in having one without the other, and in the UK, sadly, we have a plethora of rules with people to enforce them (TS, OFT, ASA, FOS etc etc) but sadly the inability to do so through resources of one type or another. It's a subject I have broached before many a time and often to much disagreement, but I will not labour that point further.

 

I will tell you now that reporting to TD will result in a response advisig you of your rights, but if you make sure your email states that you want it passed to a TSO for enforcement action, it will get passed on. If other complaints have been made, it may be enough for TS to take action.

 

But in situations like this, sellers get away with the very attitude you have - "It's only a tenner". Basically, you are telling sellers that you will let them rip you off and let them get away with it. If everyone complained and took action, maybe sellers will think twice about doing it and the problem will reduce.

 

Please do pursue it. If you don't want to, I'll do it and have your tenner!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this for a while. I consider it would be slightly unfair to complain about a retailer before approaching the retailer first. So I have just sent an email to a retailer asking them why their T&Cs conflict with the advice of the OFT on the Distance Selling Regulations, quoting (and giving a link) the advice in question.

 

I'll see what sort of reply I get.

 

Gyzmo, when you say "TD" above, what does that mean? And what does "ASA" mean, I interpret it as "Amateur Swimming Association" and don't know another organisation by that acronym. I assume that TSO is "Trading Standards Officer".

 

I chose the retailer due to other clauses in their T&Cs which are probably legal, but I didn't like. I.e. I chose someone I believe more likely to be a bit, erm, "officious". They state that their carrier will make two attempts to deliver the goods, but will them return them, and goods cannot be picked up from the carrier's warehouse for security reasons. The carrier is Initial Citylink, and I personally have experienced ICL's lying about having attempted delivery when they didn't. There is absolutely no way I would buy stuff from a retailer who had terms like that and used CityLink after my previous experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree, in general terms many companies do not comply with DSR or any of the other regs around them. I have a similar issue with Shop Direct who fail to refund the postage charge when you reject the goods under DSR. They don't even state the regs.

 

So many companies fail to comply with the regulations. All I can advise is persue it, I agree it is a blatant theft of our money as consumers, regardless of the amount you should file a complaint with Trading Standards, you can also send an email to the OFT since they enforce certain parts of the regulations. They may just tell you to go back to your local Trading Standards office but it's worth sending them an email.

 

If you want to read more about DSR you can or for a brief look at how companies should comply with the regs take a look at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the oft document I quoted when I emailed the company.

 

No reply yet, but it's early days.

 

One problem is that I don't have a loss yet. But surely T&Cs published online which are inconsistent with the law should be censured in some way, by somebody.

 

I have the shopping channel on because I was laughing (really) at guitars and guitar related items that idealworld were selling between 10 and 11pm. But now it's mobile phones. And they're saying that if you open the packaging of the mobile phone they send you, then you can't send it back. Wrong wrong wrong. But, like any laws, unless there's someone who's prepared to enforce the laws, then they're worthless.

 

It appears that at present, the DSRs are failing to protect us as they were intended to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn't help when the OFT's and BERR's own guidance gives false information... I;m sure that it was meant to make things simpler for the consumer (cos we're not very bright, dontchaknow?), but as a result, I have ben busy setting people right on "auction" and BIN on e-bay, and is it any wonder people can't get it right if the OFT doesn't either??? :rolleye:

 

I might have to write a sticky about e-bay, DSR, what does and doens't apply, might save me from repeating the sae thing over and over again, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that at present, the DSRs are failing to protect us as they were intended to do.

 

I would agree entirely with that comment.

 

Although I would go further and say complain, we don't complain enough in this country when things fail around us and think just because it's a couple of 'quid' to forget it as the hassle involved, remember that if each of us take the same attitude and don't complain the amount of money these people get away making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't agree with that comment. ;-)

 

 

The DSR in themselves are a very powerful piece of legislation, which give us the consumer the hell of a lot of protection... But it is up to each and everyone of us to use it. When sites like ebay openly flout the regs though, and most people don't know enough to know this, what do you expect? I don't think the problem is with the DSR, is is with people's ignorance of the DSR. IMO. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't agree with that comment. ;-)

 

 

The DSR in themselves are a very powerful piece of legislation, which give us the consumer the hell of a lot of protection... But it is up to each and everyone of us to use it. When sites like ebay openly flout the regs though, and most people don't know enough to know this, what do you expect? I don't think the problem is with the DSR, is is with people's ignorance of the DSR. IMO. ;-)

 

It's not just peoples, it's also companies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't agree with that comment. ;-)

 

 

The DSR in themselves are a very powerful piece of legislation, which give us the consumer the hell of a lot of protection... But it is up to each and everyone of us to use it. When sites like ebay openly flout the regs though, and most people don't know enough to know this, what do you expect? I don't think the problem is with the DSR, is is with people's ignorance of the DSR. IMO. ;-)

 

Laws are useless without enforcement. I have no idea what happens if someone complains that they haven't been refunded the full amount.

 

But there are three groups involved here.

 

[1] The consumers - who may be ignorant

[2] The retailers - who could be ignorant, or just deliberately flouting the law

[3] Whichever body, or bodies, enforce the law.

 

There are situations where a law might give someone particular rights, but those rights be ignored in the real world. E.g. many of the things that go wrong on ebay are illegal. They are theft, fraud, etc. But police sometimes (if not often or even near always) don't get involved. In this case, I'd say that the law doesn't protect us, even though in theory it should.

 

In the case of the DSRs, the reasons the law does not protect us is because of ALL THREE of the people above not doing their bit properly. The laws are written to give the consumer protection, but you need more than just well written laws for those laws to be effective.

 

Edit: Here's more.

 

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-68788.html

 

Very interesting thread. From it I extract:

 

lesliedocherty

1st June 2008, 17:04

 

We do not refund the postage if the customer changes their mind, i think i am in the wrong, but i dont care, as it seems stupid to do so, not had anyone pull me up yet, every customer has accepted it without question.

 

We have it in our T&C's

Edit2:

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/13/oft_online_shopping_report/

 

The OFT analysed over 500 UK shopping websites to see if they complied with consumer protection laws by, for example, including physical addresses on sites, telling shoppers of their rights and being transparent about pricing.

 

It found that nearly a third of sites failed in one key regard. It said that 31 per cent of sites appeared not to refund the full cost of returned goods, an integral part of European laws about distance selling.

 

OK, so it's amply clear that there is a problem. But the reason I raise this problem on a consumer action group website is to ask: what can be done about the problem?

Edited by Annoying Twit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: "I will take you piece by piece if I have to." :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought about this for a while. I consider it would be slightly unfair to complain about a retailer before approaching the retailer first. So I have just sent an email to a retailer asking them why their T&Cs conflict with the advice of the OFT on the Distance Selling Regulations, quoting (and giving a link) the advice in question.

 

The shop in question has replied with a nice polite email saying that they were updating their T&Cs to be consistent with the DSRs. So now it's thinking time again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we need is more consumers knowledgeable about their rights. When I have a problem with an online retailer, I just issue small claims proceedings. Thankfully, I know what to do and am experienced in it. But, I've issued over 100 claims just for myself, most of which were settled without going to a hearing. I've even sued for under a tenner, as a matter of principle.

 

By the way, in response to gyzmo's post: The FOS is not a regulator but an Ombudsman service. The ASA is the Advertising Standards Agency. The regulators that cover these areas have split, often overlapping, functions and are:

- ASA - Advertising Standards Authority

- OFT - Office of "Fair" Trading [i call it Office of eFfed-up Trading]

- TS - Trading Standards, specifically within the local councils

- FSA - Financial Services Authority when it relates to financial products and/or services

 

And a few others...

 

The problem is, these quango's & qualco's are useless run by the GOAT's that have no clue about anything, so basically, depending on anything happening without educating the consumer is useless, coz the GOAT's and others in charge of the quango's & qualco's won't do jack-all and whilst the businesses can get away with it, neither will they.

 

Bottom line: Only way to deal with it is to order from these companies, complain, publish your complaints and case online & sue them - making details public, so that everybody else knows about it and can do it, and hopefully does it themselves!


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

:!: 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. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All we need is more consumers knowledgeable about their rights. When I have a problem with an online retailer, I just issue small claims proceedings. Thankfully, I know what to do and am experienced in it. But, I've issued over 100 claims just for myself, most of which were settled without going to a hearing. I've even sued for under a tenner, as a matter of principle.

 

By the way, in response to gyzmo's post: The FOS is not a regulator but an Ombudsman service. The ASA is the Advertising Standards Agency. The regulators that cover these areas have split, often overlapping, functions and are:

- ASA - Advertising Standards Authority

- OFT - Office of "Fair" Trading [i call it Office of eFfed-up Trading]

- TS - Trading Standards, specifically within the local councils

- FSA - Financial Services Authority when it relates to financial products and/or services

 

And a few others...

 

The problem is, these quango's & qualco's are useless run by the GOAT's that have no clue about anything, so basically, depending on anything happening without educating the consumer is useless, coz the GOAT's and others in charge of the quango's & qualco's won't do jack-all and whilst the businesses can get away with it, neither will they.

 

Bottom line: Only way to deal with it is to order from these companies, complain, publish your complaints and case online & sue them - making details public, so that everybody else knows about it and can do it, and hopefully does it themselves!

 

Yes. My problem is that I don't have a problem. If I had a loss, I could complain.

 

From what I've seen so far, it appears that retailers rely on consumers not knowing their rights and just accepting that outward postage is not refunded. Where I have raised the issue with retailers, to the point of supplying them with the relevant parts of the DSR's and related advice, they just say "oh sorry, my mistake". While I haven't been in the situation of requesting a refund, I'd make a guess that they'd just refund the postage, and think "that's the 1% of consumers who actually know the law". I've seen a post on the uk business forums where someone actually said that they knew their T&C's were wrong, but they never got pulled up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. My problem is that I don't have a problem. If I had a loss, I could complain.

 

From what I've seen so far, it appears that retailers rely on consumers not knowing their rights and just accepting that outward postage is not refunded. Where I have raised the issue with retailers, to the point of supplying them with the relevant parts of the DSR's and related advice, they just say "oh sorry, my mistake". While I haven't been in the situation of requesting a refund, I'd make a guess that they'd just refund the postage, and think "that's the 1% of consumers who actually know the law". I've seen a post on the uk business forums where someone actually said that they knew their T&C's were wrong, but they never got pulled up on it.

In such a case I'd live up to your CAG username and build a website listing your cases and point people to it on every forum. I'd then order from them, return it within 7 days and sue them for the consequential damages. I'd then advertise what went wrong and that the company has t&c's in breach of the DSR's and people should challenge them if they have to buy from them.


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

:!: 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. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In such a case I'd live up to your CAG username and build a website listing your cases and point people to it on every forum. I'd then order from them, return it within 7 days and sue them for the consequential damages. I'd then advertise what went wrong and that the company has t&c's in breach of the DSR's and people should challenge them if they have to buy from them.

 

I'm playing a game of all things come to those who wait. I've started several threads on several different forums discussing the law. I'm now keeping an eye out for anyone returning anything, and will ask them what happened with the postage. If no postage is refunded, then I can tell them they've been ripped off and see what happens.

 

I'm considering ordering one of these: xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Would be very useful to me if it worked well, but it's probably merde. Postage on xxxxxxx is £3.XX.

 

It's not worth it to me to order something that I know I don't want, as I'll still probably be out the return postage (legally), but it's an added inducement to try some stuff I can only buy online.

 

Edit: I removed the actual hyperlink myself, but the post was later edited by a moderator to remove the name of the product and supplier. I certainly didn't realise that it wasn't alllowed to even mention the names of products or suppliers.

 

Anyhow, I am interested in a cheap form of audio interface. At the very cheap price, it's probably not that good, but it would be useful to me if it did work. It's not available in shops, so I can only buy over the internet. So the DSR's come in. Postage is low, so if I decide I don't want it, I can return it, and get a test case if the outward postage is not refunded.

Edited by Annoying Twit
removed commercial links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm playing a game of all things come to those who wait. I've started several threads on several different forums discussing the law. I'm now keeping an eye out for anyone returning anything, and will ask them what happened with the postage. If no postage is refunded, then I can tell them they've been ripped off and see what happens.

 

I'm considering ordering one of these:

 

USB XLR Microphone Cable, 5m

 

Would be very useful to me if it worked well, but it's probably merde. Postage on amazon is £3.XX.

 

It's not worth it to me to order something that I know I don't want, as I'll still probably be out the return postage (legally), but it's an added inducement to try some stuff I can only buy online.

1. Commercial links are not allowed on CAG.

2. According to the DSR's if it doesn't state who's responsible for return postage then the retailer is.

3. Whilst your game is honourable, it is probably more time consuming monitoring other threads than starting your own small site telling people the law and about cases that you've fought.


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

:!: 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. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. According to the DSR's if it doesn't state who's responsible for return postage then the retailer is.

 

If I buy from the manufacturer direct, the T&C's are as follows. I've removed the name of the manufacturer as per CAG forum guidelines.

 

4 RETURNS POLICY

 

Where the Buyer is a private person purchasing the Goods for their own private use the Buyer shall have the right (pursuant to The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000) to return the Goods to XXXX at its own cost for any reason provided that: (a) the Buyer shall have completed and submitted XXXX's 'Returns Merchandise Form' (click here for the Returns Merchandise Form) to XXXX within 7 working days from the day after the date of delivery of the Goods; (b) the Goods are clearly marked with the 'Returns Merchandise Authorisation Number' that the Buyer will be sent by XXXX upon submission of the 'Returns Merchandise Form'; © the Goods are in a saleable condition with original packaging and complete with all manuals, components and software seals (if applicable) intact. Following the expiry of the 7 day period referred to above, acceptance of returned Goods shall be at the complete discretion of XXXX and in the event that XXXX does decide to accept the return of Goods after this time a handling and restocking charge of either £10 or 20% of the value of the relevant invoice (whichever is the greater) shall be deducted from any sum returned/recredited to the Buyer in respect of: (i) Goods returned due to a fault alleged by the Buyer but where no fault is found by XXXX; and (ii) Goods returned to the Buyer which were ordered by mistake.

Saying that the buyer must return the goods at "it's" own cost is confusing. I'd guess that the non-compliant clauses here are requiring the buyer to have gone through the XXXX returns procedure and obtained a number (not sure on that one), and that the goods must be in saleable condition (not if that conflicts with the buyer's right to examine the goods they can't claim that).

 

3. Whilst your game is honourable, it is probably more time consuming monitoring other threads than starting your own small site telling people the law and about cases that you've fought.

Not in this case, as they are forums I follow anyway. No extra time there. I've done a few google searches on likely terms, and found nothing. So, waiting appears to be the best option. If slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I buy from the manufacturer direct, the T&C's are as follows. I've removed the name of the manufacturer as per CAG forum guidelines.

You're allowed to quote the manufacturers name, just not to link to commercial sites. The returns policy has a link (under click here).

 

If I buy from the manufacturer direct, the T&C's are as follows. I've removed the name of the manufacturer as per CAG forum guidelines.

 

Quote:

4 RETURNS POLICY

 

Where the Buyer is a private person purchasing the Goods for their own private use the Buyer shall have the right (pursuant to The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000) to return the Goods to XXXX at its own cost for any reason provided that: (a) the Buyer shall have completed and submitted XXXX's 'Returns Merchandise Form' (click here for the Returns Merchandise Form) to XXXX within 7 working days from the day after the date of delivery of the Goods; (b) the Goods are clearly marked with the 'Returns Merchandise Authorisation Number' that the Buyer will be sent by XXXX upon submission of the 'Returns Merchandise Form'; © the Goods are in a saleable condition with original packaging and complete with all manuals, components and software seals (if applicable) intact. Following the expiry of the 7 day period referred to above, acceptance of returned Goods shall be at the complete discretion of XXXX and in the event that XXXX does decide to accept the return of Goods after this time a handling and restocking charge of either £10 or 20% of the value of the relevant invoice (whichever is the greater) shall be deducted from any sum returned/recredited to the Buyer in respect of: (i) Goods returned due to a fault alleged by the Buyer but where no fault is found by XXXX; and (ii) Goods returned to the Buyer which were ordered by mistake.

Saying that the buyer must return the goods at "it's" own cost is confusing. I'd guess that the non-compliant clauses here are requiring the buyer to have gone through the XXXX returns procedure and obtained a number (not sure on that one), and that the goods must be in saleable condition (not if that conflicts with the buyer's right to examine the goods they can't claim that).

 

Quote:

3. Whilst your game is honourable, it is probably more time consuming monitoring other threads than starting your own small site telling people the law and about cases that you've fought.

Not in this case, as they are forums I follow anyway. No extra time there. I've done a few google searches on likely terms, and found nothing. So, waiting appears to be the best option. If slow.

 

Saying that the buyer must return the goods at "it's" own cost is confusing. I'd guess that the non-compliant clauses here are requiring the buyer to have gone through the XXXX returns procedure and obtained a number (not sure on that one), and that the goods must be in saleable condition (not if that conflicts with the buyer's right to examine the goods they can't claim that).

Confusing and misleading terms.

I'd actually say that charging an unlimited penalty is unfair.

The saleable condition is not too unfair, it would be better to state the same condition the goods were received in.

 

I seriously doubt you're monitoring that many forums about returns if it isn't time consuming. Purely on glancing through forums to find cases I feel like assisting with I find loads on returns.

 

There's a difference between glancing through the headings of the thread topics to actually following forums. Numerous cases I have helped on have misleading or generic headings.


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

:!: 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. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my, those T&Cs aren't very compliant at all really.

 

All that is required to return an item is a permanent notice of cancellation (email, letter etc). They cannot insist that all packaging be intact, there is no connection between the returning of an item and its resaleability and they cannot charge a restocking or admin fee.

 

Another part of the problem is the government introducing tons of legislation without bothering to consult properly or inform consumers and traders. The CPUTRs are an excellent example. Traders are panicking about how they should comply, and little guidance was given when the regs were introduced.

 

The media do not help either. The BBC, Times, Express and Mail are the worst offenders. I remember when supplementary indications were given an indefinite extension last year. According to the media, imperial measures were legal again, when in fact no change had actually taken place. And don't get me started on dragon sausages.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The company I mentioned further back in this thread that said that it would change its T&Cs to be compliant has done so.

 

Here's another company. I haven't mentioned the name of the company as a previous post of mine that mentioned a company name was edited by a moderator.

 

Anyhow, here are the T&Cs.

 

7 Day ‘No Quibble’ Guarantee - updated (14/11/07)

 

Goods may be returned to XXXXX XXXXXX for a full refund (certain items are excluded from this offer) within 7 days of receipt.

 

  • All microphones, any in-ear earphones, or in-ear monitors, and any other items that touch your mouth, your nose, or your inner ear cannot be returned for refund under the No Quibble Guarantee once opened due to our health and safety policy.
  • Goods ordered specifically to meet a customer's requirements cannot be returned under the No Quibble Guarantee, for example, a bespoke computer system.
  • Software, media, sample CD’s and any other copyrighted goods cannot be returned for refund under the No Quibble Guarantee if the item has been opened.

If your goods are eligible to be returned under the 7 day ‘no quibble’ guarantee then follow the returns procedure above. Items returned for refund under the 7 day ‘no quibble’ guarantee must be returned by the customer at the customer’s expense. All items are inspected upon receipt at XXXXXXXX.

The customer has a statutory duty to take reasonable care of any goods while in their possession if they wish to return them for refund. Goods returned for a refund must be in a satisfactory condition. If you have opened the box to look at or try the product you must have done so taking reasonable care of the products and not damaging them in any way. Items must be returned with their original unmarked packaging with manuals, original documents, accessories, registration card and any free gifts intact.

If it is decided that the customer has not taken reasonable care of the product while in their possession then recompense may be pursued.

 

Insisting that the goods are returned with their original packaging is not compliant. But I'm most interested in the statement that microphones and headphones cannot be returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...