unwanted mail orders

-=Mr-J=-

IvanOpinion wrote:

You quoted me out of context. The sentence started 'If you are in doubt about the small print ' ... The OP was in doubt about the small print therefore rather than risking your reputation and your credit rating it is always better to check things out thoroughly and make sure of your facts. This is exactly what the OP did and they have got an acceptable result.

Sorry Ivan, you are absolutely correct. Will read more closely / be more careful in future.

RightRevBod

I suggest that you send them an invoice for storage charges. Tell them that by sending the goods to you (for storage) they are accepting your terms and conditions. (Invent some)

As I assume that this is a fairly small parcel, £5 per week or part thereof seems fair. If they ignore the invoice, as they probably will, send them a reminder, and impose a £15 admin charge for doing so. Once this has accrued to a reasonable amount (say £200) instigate small claims proceedings.

I have heard a story of a "friend of a friend" ( NB: This may be an urban legend) who did this. The company did not turn up in court to defend the case. Judgement was made by default in favour of the friend. The company did not pay up, and he went back to court and got a distress warrant which allowed him to appoint bailiffs. These than went into the companies offices and ceased equipment. This was auctioned off to pay the friend, his legal charges and the bailiff fees. In the end, it was rather expensive for the company concerned.

Fruitcake

I'm sure I heard on the radio a while ago that being continually harrassed (eg for payments where you don't actually owe anything) contravenes part of the new anti-stalking laws.

Does anyone out there know if this is true?



Fruitcake

You Only Listen To Me When I'm Wrong

Alfie_E

IvanOpinion wrote:

'Didn't see any small print' is not an excuse ..

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do allow for this as an “excuse”. Small print has to be both physically legible and comprehensible to a normal consumer.

peter_the_piper wrote:

I might be wrong but I don't think it is allowed to issue terms and conditions which allow a supplier to send goods (on approval?) which they can refuse to take back.

stevenh wrote:

…surely everything is on approval, otherwise companys would send all sorts of junk and expect payment for them.

I would think you’re right. The company would be asking the consumer to waive their statutory rights under the Distance Selling Regulations, for all items not explicit exempt by the Regulations. This is not allowed. For anything else, it would seem to be an unfair contract term. There is a “significant imbalance” in the contract – the company has all the control over what’s sent, and the consumer has none.

Stonk

stevenh wrote:

RESULT!!!!!!
Thanks to all who offered advice on this. After getting in touch with the company by e-mail quoting "Unsolicited goods and services act", I received a response next day saying that they will take the goods back on this occasion as a "goodwill" gesture.

But how unsatisfying, though! They make it sound like they're doing you a favour, when as everyone points out they are simply doing something they are legally obliged to.