Mad at internet retailers who choose which laws apply!

mad-mark_2

Anihilator wrote: »

How do they terms and conditions break the law?

This bit: "Refund on purchased item will only be paid once we receive and have accepted the condition of the product returned. Postage will only be refunded if we have made an error in shipping the wrong item or there is a fault." That's twice.

Anihilator wrote: »

The DSR allows retailers to pass on the postage costs as long as its in the terms which it is.

Where does it say that? A reference to the section in the DSRs would be helpful. A vague recollection of some partly remembered misunderstanding, erm, isn't.

Anihilator wrote: »

You cant read the bits you like and call that the law:rolleyes:

You mean like they have tried to?! :mad:

Snakeeyes21

And has any company been fined for breaking this law?

I didn't think so.

Just goes to show who the regulators think are right.

Why should a company soak up the cost because an incompetent customer changes their mind? from what I'm aware of theres already discussions going on to change some terms in the DSR, such as the refund without receiving the goods back, and the return of postage.

These regulations are among some of the reasons why alot of large retailers have postage costs built in.

the182guy

mad-mark, I would advise you not to waste your time reacting to the forum troll. This person is known for their abusive posts and has been seen creating offensive threads which warrant a moderator to close. Basically by reacting you give them what they want. As a rule of thumb it is better if you refuse to dignify their comments/posts with a response.

mad-mark_2

Thanks the182guy, the troll was just what I needed to vent a bit. Fun for a minute or two, but then boring and ignored.

And Snakeeyes21, the reason a company should soak up the cost when incompetent customers (such as me) change their mind, is because they haven't had to bear the cost of a real shop in town where I can browse the items and try them on before purchasing - for free! OK, it was maternity wear, so my wife would have tried them on, but you get my point?

But actually, you're missing the point. Whether you agree with it or not, it's the law. And this company is, like many others, trying to ignore it. And then plead for my goodwill when they begrudgingly accept it, and *still* try to claim that they know the law.

Trading standards will be receiving an email, and my aim is to get this company to change their website to comply. Beginning with the removal of the bit I've already highlighted above. Will they be fined? I doubt it. Will they have to change their website. We'll see. Will I be testing them out again at some point in the future? I might just!

the182guy

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

And has any company been fined for breaking this law?

I didn't think so.

You wouldn't know if they were. They aren't likely to publish it on their website are they, and an online retailer with an invalid term is not likely to make primetime news is it?

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

Just goes to show who the regulators think are right.

Why should a company soak up the cost because an incompetent customer changes their mind? from what I'm aware of theres already discussions going on to change some terms in the DSR, such as the refund without receiving the goods back, and the return of postage.

These regulations are among some of the reasons why alot of large retailers have postage costs built in.

If you're a supplier and you refer to a consumer as incompetent because they chose to invoke Regulation 10 (Right to Cancel) of the DSR then you are likely to become very unpopular.

Also the DSR only requires the supplier to refund original postage, not return postage.

neilmcl

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

Why should a company soak up the cost because an incompetent customer changes their mind?

The DSRs are not about allowing a customer to change their mind its there specifically to give the consumer the same rights as they would have in a physical location, ie, the ability to fully inspect the goods and make an informed decision as to whether they wish to continue with the purchase. Incompetency doesn't come into it other than in relation to some retailers who clearly dont want to recognise their legal obligations.

Colliefrog

mad-mark wrote: »

And they are therefore all acting against the law. Maybe if they all do it, that'll be ok...?

Well, I had better let my boss know that the company and it's thousands of employee's are breaking the law as we never refund the postage charges on goods returned under the customer service guarantee and we don't issue a refund until the good are scanned back in at the warehouse. :rolleyes:

Snakeeyes21

the182guy wrote: »

If you're a supplier and you refer to a consumer as incompetent because they chose to invoke Regulation 10 (Right to Cancel) of the DSR then you are likely to become very unpopular.

Also the DSR only requires the supplier to refund original postage, not return postage.

A set of regulations that even the people who came up with them think are wrong.

I mean what kind of people expect a refund before goods are sent back?

Its a good job the company I work for has the postage included in the price, it seems to avoid twits who like to mess people around ordering then expecting a full refund when they change their minds.

How did people ever cope before? thats right people used to take responsibility for their actions.

Hintza

OP you really are wanting something for nothing.

If the seller makes a mistake or item is faulty then I think it is quite reasonable to expect delivery charges to be refunded.

If buyer makes the mistake then I think it only reasonable they pay for delivery charges.

Do you not think that is fair?

neilmcl

Correct me if I'm wrong but the OP has stated that he didn't expect to be refunded for the cost of returning the goods. He's only asked for and received exactly what he's fully entitled to under the prevailing legislation. Why all the criticism.