Hierarchy of statutes, regulations and T&Cs

[Tom Norman]

Thanks to some excellent advice from these forums I have recently resolved an issue of being expected to pay postage for the pleasure of returning a faulty item. R.14(6) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 places responsibility for bearing said cost upon the seller.

 

I have pointed out the relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 with which their Terms and Conditions do not comply in this regard. However, the company in question is still insisting their T&C's comply with all legal requirements but is willing to make a "one time exception" and replace the faulty item without receiving the defective unit (as if they're doing me a favour).

 

My question therefore is: Do 'regulations' count as statutory rights or do they rank lower than Terms and Conditions? Obviously a company's T&Cs cannot circumvent statutory rights so how can they still claim to be abiding by the law?

[BankFodder]

Regulations count as statutory rights.

However, a company would be within its rights to require the return of a defective item before providing a replacement - although they would have to pay for the postage once it was established that the item was defective

[Conniff]

If an item is returned as 'not wanted' under the DSR, then return postage can be charge but only if it says so in their T&Cs and was there at the time of purchase, they cannot add it to their T&Cs once a purchase has been made.

If they don't say that return postage is the responsibility of the buyer, then they have to return both delivery and return costs.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Ts &Cs cannot be worded to remove your statutory rights.

[Tom Norman]

Ok, thanks, Bankfodder. I figured that was the case. I'm surprised at their reaction to be honest; I only wanted them to pay the postage. The item in question was a gaming mouse costing £115 so do you suppose the cost of returning it to Germany (and subsequently shipping out the replacement) is just in excess of the cost rate of building a new one, or is this some kind of trap? Or are they just being disproportionately generous so I'll let things lie?

 

Conniff, I'm afraid you've lost me a bit. It was my understanding that regulation 14(6) of The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 rendered the requirement for the customer to bear the expense of returns non-applicable in the case of faulty goods (as the customer has the right to reject said goods). Am I wrong in this?

 

BRIGADIER2JCS, my thanks for taking the time to help me out but I think you may have misunderstood the question.

[Conniff]

The seller can state in their T&Cs should you return the product for a other than not working, the return postage is to be met by the buyer in accordance with the DSRs.

The buyer is only liable for the return postage if it says so in the T&Cs. If there is nothing in the T&Cs about return costs, then the seller is liable.

 

If the product bought has a fault then the seller must pay for the return

 

Refunds

 

The retailer must refund the full amount including the delivery costs as soon as possible after the consumer cancels, and in any case within 30 days at the latest. You cannot insist on the goods being received by you before you make a refund.

 

Returning goods

 

Only if it is covered in the contract and the written information can you require the consumer to pay for the cost of returning the ordered goods. If the consumer then fails to return the goods, or sends them at your expense, you can charge them the direct cost to you of the return, even if you have already refunded the consumer’s money.

 

You are not allowed to make any further charges, such as a restocking charge or an administration charge. If you do not include these details in the required written information then you cannot charge anything. You can never require consumers to pay the cost of returning substitute goods. If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances.

 

 

www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft913.pdf‎

Edited May 13, 2013 by Conniff

[Tom Norman]

Good, that's a relief. As much as I resent being held hostage by a company, I think it's just as bad the other way around. I wouldn't want to be browbeating anyone into giving me things to which I had no legal right.