Mad at internet retailers who choose which laws apply!

mad-mark_2

negg wrote: »

No, work it out:

The retailer:

Recieves £10 + £4 postage (money in = £14 less credit card charges, call it £13)
Pays £4 to Royal Mail (money in now = £9)
<snip>

Retailer loses out £5 and customer loses out £4.

Summary: Both retailer and customer lose out.

It is completely unfair that the retailer loses out when a customer changes their mind/makes a mistake. If a business charged you when they made an error/mistake (i.e. sent the wrong item), the customer would be fuming!

The laws need changing, drastically.

It's true that the customer loses out as does the retailer. That, to me, is fair, and will stop me ordering things and returning them 'for fun'.

You've also got to remember that, in this specific case, Seraphine sells clothes to pregnant ladies. Wanna guess how difficult it is to know what size will actually fit? Seraphine even mention that they understand this difficulty in their T&Cs. So if it doesn't fit, us consumers can either be very British about it and put it down to experience, or we can ask for a refund.

In this case I asked for a refund, followed the letter and spirit of the law, but IMHO Seraphine tried to pull the wool over my eyes. Repeatedly. And that's what got me mad.

Oh, and let's be serious for a moment. You don't honestly think that retailers won't take the opportunity to make a small piece of profit from the postage fees they charge...? They'll certainly make enough from the satisfied customers to be able to pay the return costs for the few unsatisfied customers, and have pocket money to spare. That's fine. As long as it's not *my* pocket money they are trying to keep, illegally.

mad-mark_2

A quick progress update: (why do people never record here the outcome of their battles? Would be really useful in many cases to see the question, the rant and then the conclusion!)

Filled out a form at ConsumerDirect.com explaining the circumstances and my concerns that the DSR law wasn't being followed by Seraphine's actions and in their Ts&Cs. Their reply states that unfair business practice is potentially a criminal offence and needs to be dealt with by trading standards, so they have forwarded on the details for trading standards to investigate.

I'll keep an eye on their website to see if their terms and conditions are updated...

biscit

Tozer wrote: »

Libel? Have you ever had any experience of what is involved in a libel action - particularly as a corporate claimant?

I think defamatory posts in a forum are technically libel, even if you'd have to be out of your mind to sue. Some people have been...

Although having said that I think the comment read to me as an assessment of the DSR, not a direct attack on anyone. An incorrect assessment some feel, but if it was any form of attack, it's an attack on all companies with that same policy. To call that libel is silly.

Mad-Mark wrote:

A quick progress update

Thanks for keeping us posted. I think the letter sits on the fence as to whether the terms are unfair or not- it just says if they are they can be a criminal offense. I'll be interested to see how this turns out. If trading standards think it is unfair, I feel it will take some time before the practice dies out.