online retailer refusing return - need advice ***Resolved***

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sure thing, my apologies.

 

I appreciate him putting fourth the opposite view, but he kept disagreeing with my argument when my points were valid. So it made sense to tell him where to go!

That should be amended to " when you thought your points were valid"!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As I know understand it the Hall_Fast site requires company data/account data to be entered at the "checkout" on the site which is strictly "Trade Only".

[ericsbrother]

As the business is clearly a business to business site the consumer protection laws do not apply to the transactions, just contract law. Now, if you as a purchaser are not a business it doesnt matter as that is their primary custom so you may be treated the same. If you can show that they have a substantial consmer customer base or a part of their busines that deals with consumers then you have a case to complain under the conusmer regs. Also, all of their prices are ex-VAT so again a pointer to a trade site as retail prices must be shown inclusive.

You are on a hiding to nothing with your complaint so it would be wise to save yourself grief and give up with your attempts to show that black is white.

[noomill060]

This transaction was not a b2b. That is clear

 

 

It was business to consumer and as such covered by the replacement DSR regs. That is all you need to worry about.

 

 

The seller is blatently attempting to contract out of the regs. This is unlawful and thus any t&cs stating thus are void and unenforceable in the case of a B2C transaction.

 

Buyer should simply return goods at the cheapest price, retaining the FREE PROOF OF POSTING to the address given by the company.

 

 

If the seller doesn't refund within the 14 day period allowed, just start a claim against them. If you're not working you can get exemption from fees so it need not cost you a penny.

 

Let them try to convince a judge that the law doesn't apply to them.

 

Far too much ill informed nonsense spouted on this thread.

 

Been there. done that and crushed the trader.

 

 

Go for it

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I know for a fact that this site makes it quite clear that is has one set of terms and conditions which applies to ALL sales.

[ericsbrother]

noomill060, you are quite wrong. It does not matter that the OP bought as a consumer, that is not the business the seller is in and that is made quite clear. They are industrial suppliers and their customers are deemed to be business purchasers and fill outa purchase order with VAT details where applicable. Retail sites are prohibited from separate VAT invoicing. If an individual purchases items from them they accept those terms UNLESS a substantial proportion of the customers are consumers. It would be a hard slog to prove that anywhere near 50% of the purchases are made by consumers so this transaction does not alter the selling terms.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

noomill060, you are quite wrong. It does not matter that the OP bought as a consumer, that is not the business the seller is in and that is made quite clear. They are industrial suppliers and their customers are deemed to be business purchasers and fill outa purchase order with VAT details where applicable. Retail sites are prohibited from separate VAT invoicing. If an individual purchases items from them they accept those terms UNLESS a substantial proportion of the customers are consumers. It would be a hard slog to prove that anywhere near 50% of the purchases are made by consumers so this transaction does not alter the selling terms.

 

 

The OP made a BOO BOO and got caught out I think.

[2REAL2RYAN]

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained

 

 

This transaction was not a b2b. That is clear

 

 

It was business to consumer and as such covered by the replacement DSR regs. That is all you need to worry about.

 

 

The seller is blatently attempting to contract out of the regs. This is unlawful and thus any t&cs stating thus are void and unenforceable in the case of a B2C transaction.

 

Buyer should simply return goods at the cheapest price, retaining the FREE PROOF OF POSTING to the address given by the company.

 

 

If the seller doesn't refund within the 14 day period allowed, just start a claim against them. If you're not working you can get exemption from fees so it need not cost you a penny.

 

Let them try to convince a judge that the law doesn't apply to them.

 

Far too much ill informed nonsense spouted on this thread.

 

Been there. done that and crushed the trader.

 

 

Go for it

 

noomill060 you are clearly the most knowledgeable and wise contributor here since I was able to get my money back in the end (although I had to pay returns postage) and I had to spend a great deal of time typing emails covering the consumer contract regulation.

 

Anyhow let this be a lesson to people seeking advice on this forum...do not listen to posters with military avatars.

 

Bless you noomill060 for your detailed and refined response. I would have referred to some of your points in my email to the company, however you response was a little too late and by that time I had already used the advice kindly given by rebel11 which secured my refund in the end.

 

But thank you again for the response as some of your points would have been great to highlight to them...in hindsight

 

p.s. if you try to challenge the admin's opinions you will be censored...absolute joke cannot take this cowboy forum seriously anymore.

Edited August 19, 2014 by 2REAL2RYAN

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

My guess is Halls were just glad to see the back of you.

[2REAL2RYAN]

My guess is Halls were just glad to see the back of you.

 

love how you censor all my posts...cant take the truth haha.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

love how you censor all my posts...cant take the truth haha.

Still it cost you time and money trying to get a cheap deal that did not payoff.

[rebel11]

The post was edited as it did not adhere to site rules.

 

love how you censor all my posts...cant take the truth haha.

[2REAL2RYAN]

The post was edited as it did not adhere to site rules.

 

yet BRIGADIER2JCS can post negative abuse as he pleases:

 

"My guess is Halls were just glad to see the back of you."

 

just reinforces how this website is biased and unprofessional at all levels.

[reallymadwoman]

Can I just point out that the person you are accusing of abuse is a long-standing and respected contributor to this site who has helped many people and who generally provides an accurate statement of the law as it stands in relation to any particular situation.

 

You have 22 posts and have been a member for less than 3 weeks, and you're accusing the site of being biased because the advice you were given wasn't what you wanted to hear?

 

I'm glad you got your money back but have to agree that Hall's did so as a gesture of goodwill only and were under no obligation to accept a return. Brig's statement of the law was entirely accurate and you were lucky. End of.

[2REAL2RYAN]

Can I just point out that the person you are accusing of abuse is a long-standing and respected contributor to this site who has helped many people and who generally provides an accurate statement of the law as it stands in relation to any particular situation.

 

You have 22 posts and have been a member for less than 3 weeks, and you're accusing the site of being biased because the advice you were given wasn't what you wanted to hear?

 

I'm glad you got your money back but have to agree that Hall's did so as a gesture of goodwill only and were under no obligation to accept a return. Brig's statement of the law was entirely accurate and you were lucky. End of.

 

CAN I JUST POINT OUT that being a longstanding respected member should not validate special rights to belittle other members...and to then silence those who retaliate. shows how ridiculous the management are on this website.