Can I ask for my P&P back?

richto

Premier wrote:

As the goods did not conform to contract (i.e. they were mis-described), you are entitled to a full refund, and that includes the original p+p charge.

Unfortunately, you sent the boots back at your own expense. You are not automatically entitled to recover this cost. You could try to claim for compensation, but a court will only entertain the actual cost of postage & packaging incurred, not any extra for your time or inconvenience. The cost must also be reasonable.

Wrong. See The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002

Yes you are automatically entitled to recover P&P costs if the product was faulty. The law says the vendor must cover costs to AND from for repairs and replacements.

You CAN claim for consequential losses, but not normally for distress, inconvenience or disappointment. Return postage falls under this category of a claimable consequental loss.

Bargainbabe_2

What company is it?

katyp

I emailed the company one last time, and again had no response.
So I contacted trading standards, who told me that as the goods were not as described, I was entitled to be put back in the same position as I would have been had I not placed the order in the first place ie I was entitled to claim both original and return P&P.

So, I have written via recorded delivery, telling the company that it they don't pay up by the middle of January, I will be starting a claim through the Small Claims Court to retrieve my money.

What a ridiculous state of affairs for £12!

sainthalo

whats more ridiculous is that you're too scared or nice to name and shame the company.

this is the reason they can get away with these sorts of things because of the great british reserve.

Premier_2

richto wrote:

Wrong. See The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002

Yes you are automatically entitled to recover P&P costs if the product was faulty. The law says the vendor must cover costs to AND from for repairs and replacements.

You CAN claim for consequential losses, but not normally for distress, inconvenience or disappointment. Return postage falls under this category of a claimable consequental loss.

Sorry, but why am I wong?

Details of the relevant law you refer to are here.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

It says nothing about automatic right to a refund of the return costs incurred. Indeed, if the goods are faulty, the supplier may elect to collect them themselves at their cost or may even decide to allow the purchaser to keep the defective goods.

As regards to a compensation claim, I did mention the possibility of this in my earlier post.

yenners

i find that retailers are getting quite strict with not refunding the p&p these days. I bought a bra from M&S and what showed up was completely different form the description on their website. when I returned it to my local store the grumpy sales assistant refused to give me a refund on the p&p. I finally had to ask for the manager and she reluctantly gave me a refund when I explained that it wasn't my fault that their website was incorrect.

sainthalo

Why cant you be bothered to deter and warn others by naming this company?

RufusA

Premier wrote:

Sorry, but why am I wong?

Details of the relevant law you refer to are here.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

It says nothing about automatic right to a refund of the return costs incurred.

If you look at the actual regulations rather than a summary:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm

48B Repair or replacement of the goods
(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must -

(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

So under these *specific* circumstances that the OP described (i.e. asking for repair or replacement) then supplier has to bear ALL necessary costs of carrying out the repair / replacement.

If the good are rejected under SOGA, then the buyer is entitled to a FULL refund of the purchase price + P&P (combination of Distance Selling Regs. and SOGA). Though this is obviously separate from repair / replace option.

However as the OP pointed out there is no legal requirement for them to refund return P&P costs if they haven't been given an opportunity to arrange a return (to mitigate costs).

The other grey area is timliness. The buyer has 7 days under the DSR to reject goods (no refund of P&P), and a "reasonable" time under the SOGA (refund of P&P). If the amount of time is greater than this the seller could argue the contract has been rescinded rather than the goods rejected, and therefore only proportional costs refunded (i.e. original cost less an amount for the time they had use of the goods and no refund for P&P).

Confused yet?

Bottom line is as consumer direct suggested, if the goods are misdescribed then ultimately the purchaser should not end up out of pocket because of the sellers mistake. That is of course assuming it was a *significant* error in the description rather than a slight variation in shade or interpretation.

YMMV - Rufus.

Premier_2

The OP asked for a refund, not a repair or replacement. A repair or replacement is not really possible when goods are mis-described, is it?

RufusA wrote:

However as the OP pointed out there is no legal requirement for them to refund return P&P costs if they haven't been given an opportunity to arrange a return (to mitigate costs).

That was the basis of my post too!

Premier wrote:

Unfortunately, you sent the boots back at your own expense. You are not automatically entitled to recover this cost.

At least you seem to agree what I said was correct

katyp wrote:

I was entitled to be put back in the same position as I would have been had I not placed the order in the first place ie I was entitled to claim both original and return P&P.

I can see the defence lawyers statement now. Something along the lines of we accept the goods were mis-described, and accept in these circumstances that the plaintiff is entitled to a full refund of the original purchase price including p+p. However, we never asked for, nor accepted the notion, that the plaintiff return the goods to us. We are happy to refund the initial purchase price in full, together with the initial p+p charge - however the return p+p charge was incurred by the plaintiff of her own will and we suggest that she has therefore not mitigated her losses in this instance. Hence our client should not be liable for the unmitigated losses incurred by the plaintiff in this matter.

Premier_2

sainthalo wrote:

Why cant you be bothered to deter and warn others by naming this company?

Please stop attempting to bully the OP to post the name of the company involved.

As she has now suggested that legal action may result from the matter she posted about, it is probably wise at this time she remain schtum.