Pauls Boutique Breaking DSR's?

pulliptears

Just having a read of their FAQ's regarding returns:

http://www.pauls-boutique.com/info.aspx

Am I right in thinking that this statement:

Items purchased from the Outlet Store can only be EXCHANGED for an alternative product.
NO REFUNDS will be authorised.

and this statement:

Delivery charges are non refundable (unless the item is faulty or incorrect) so you will be refunded the full value of the items returned less the delivery charge.

Both contravene DSR's?

I recalled a thread on here a few weeks bag from a disgruntled customer and was looking at PB's site out of interest to see if they had updated their policies, looks like they haven't...

squeaky

This thread says they are contravening DSR's with the second one...

Pauls Boutique returns

dmg24

I would agree that they do. The DSR's are mentioned, but it would appear that their policy on outlet items attempts to override them.

It is pretty common. I'm not sure if they have been changed, but Ghost and SexToys refused to refund my delivery charge. I got it back eventually, albeit as a goodwill gesture, not in recognition of the law.

pulliptears

squeaky wrote: »

This thread says they are contravening DSR's with the second one...

Pauls Boutique returns

that's the thread I was referring to, the OP never updated but I had wondered if PB had changed anything on site since then, seemingly not.

I was curious though how much of their T&C's contravened the DSR's.

Maybe we should make a name and shame list on these companies?

dmg24

Ghost are still in contravention.

All successfully returned items will only be credited to the account used to originally purchase the items(s). We are also unable to refund any shipping charges.

pulliptears

As I said, maybe time for a named and shamed sticky?

squeaky

Hmm...

I'd have to ask about that one. After all, we only see complaints here and not the possible high percentage of happy shoppers that a given company may have.

We also have the Praise, Vents and Warnings board.

Perhaps a pointer in the sticky suggesting people look up companies there... but usually, by the time members drop in here they've already done their shopping and run into trouble.

dmg24

squeaky wrote: »

Hmm...

I'd have to ask about that one. After all, we only see complaints here and not the possible high percentage of happy shoppers that a given company may have.

No one is saying that they do not have happy shoppers.

This thread would actually have the least potential for litigation, as it is stating fact as opposed to the opinions given about retailers on almost all other threads.

pulliptears

dmg24 wrote: »

No one is saying that they do not have happy shoppers.

This thread would actually have the least potential for litigation, as it is stating fact as opposed to the opinions given about retailers on almost all other threads.

Exactly, their T&C's are there in full technicolour, proving their non compliance with the law.

Could serve to educate those who are not as familiar with DSR's if they see a list of companies who don't comply with them, added to this, naming and shaming may be enough to get these big businesses who should know better to change their policies, thus another victory for us MSE'ers.

squeaky

I take your point, honest

But give me time to check, please.

An option is for someone to start such a thread. If the Forum Team don't bin it or close it then it would certainly be one that would have value as a sticky.

(Keep it clean and be nice )

pulliptears

squeaky wrote: »

I take your point, honest

But give me time to check, please.

An option is for someone to start such a thread. If the Forum Team don't bin it or close it then it would certainly be one that would have value as a sticky.

(Keep it clean and be nice )

Oh don't worry Squeaks my sweet, I won't start one without permission, but I do think it could be a useful tool of persuasion to some companies.

Ill leave it in your capable hands