Right to return.

Sponge

I placed an internet order for goods on 21st December. The order was delivered on the 23rd. It was not what I was expecting.

The item I received (I actually bought 2 of them) was a different brand/make to that pictured, although it is designed to perform the same task.

The problem is, I have already tried the product they sent me (bought elsewhere) and it does not perform the task I need it to, which is why I placed this order. I wanted a different product in the hope it would work.

The advertised product was not referred to, in writing, by name, just by a generic description. (Neither was the the item I received.) However, the picture alongside the description was for a different product to that received. With the supplied information, I was expecting the item in the picture.

I hope that makes sense. At this stage I'm deliberately not mentioning the retailer or goods by name.

There is nothing on their website about goods not being as advertised, or being substituted when not available. There is also, perhaps more importantly, nothing about my rights to return, etc, under DSR. (I thought this was a legal requirement.) The only reference to returns is in their 'About Us' page saying I have to return goods within 7 days.

...have a no-quibble refund policy to cover products. Those items that are found to be unsatisfactory should be returned to us within seven days of purchase and will be refunded in full.

As I understand it, the above conflicts with the DSR as outlined below and therefore cannot be used as justification for refusing my request for a refund (I'm partly thinking of postal limitations during the Christmas period):

Can I include a term in the contract that states that the
consumer must return goods within a certain number of
days in order to obtain a refund?

3.64

No. Under the DSRs such terms have no legal effect. The DSRs contain provisions aimed at ensuring that businesses do not use contractual terms that deny consumers their rights under the DSRs or impose obligations on consumers that are inconsistent with them.

For example, a term making cancellation conditional on the return of goods would be inconsistent with consumers’ rights to receive a refund – see paragraph 3.46. However, you may request that goods are returned within a certain period or as soon as practicable as long as it does not link the receipt of the goods to the giving of a refund.

I want to return the goods, which the DSRs allow me to do. I emailed them yesterday, so have fulfilled the requirement of informing them within 7 working days.

However, I feel I should not have to bear the cost of returning the goods. They should either arrange for their collection, or refund my postage (when I find out what it is).

Does the following reinforce my claim?

3.56 If you did not include these details in the required written information then you cannot charge anything. See paragraph 3.10. You can never require consumers to pay the cost of returning substitute goods – see paragraph 3.1 for more information.

3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances.

I just wanted to confirm that I am within my rights to ask them to cover the cost of return postage. I fear the retailer my argue the case and refuse; or say they will, but only if they receive the goods within 7 days; or even, refund me, but not for the postage costs. I'll then be in the position of having to battle for it.

Above quotes from http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Edit: I didn't realise the post got this long.

Valli

You've answered your own questions really. Your legal rights are over and above what the company itself offers - you ordered goods, they sent you substitute goods they pay return postage. Ask them for a prepaid label.
If they start being 'funny' refer them to the legal terms above and Trading Standards. Distance selling regs apply.

Don't apologise for the length of your post BTW - it's lucid and apposite!

Sponge

Thank you. I like the suggestion of asking for a pre-paid label. It hadn't occurred to me.:money: