Supplier wants to charge 40% for delivering wrong product

arcon5

bengasman wrote: »

My questions are:
1 Is the supplier legally allowed to charge an admin fee for returning a product that does not fit?

Yes they are, for B2B transactions. Check their Ts and Cs. If you order something that doesn't fit then that is your fault so they can... however, in this case they have sent the wrong part and the problem is not a fault of your own so this shouldn't apply

2 Do both amounts of shipping come for my account?

Again, will be covered in T&Cs. If they have sent the wrong product they should though replace at no cost to yourself though.

3 Am I entitled to financial compensation for losing half a day due to their fault? I did give the exact specifications in fine detail, which could not have been misunderstood.

Doubt it.

4 What is the legal term for supplying a part that does not fit? I know that a product that doesn't last anywhere near a reasonable time, is called “not fit for purpose”, and was wondering if this would be the same principle.

'Not as described'.

.................

bengasman

"1 Is the supplier legally allowed to charge an admin fee for returning a product that does not fit?
If you order something that doesn't fit then that is your fault so they can... however, in this case they have sent the wrong part and the problem is not a fault of your own so this shouldn't apply "

This is where it gets complicated. According to them, it is the right part. Unfortunately, they refuse to comment in writing ( no surprise there ) and claim by phone "that it is normal to make alterations". I agree charges SHOULDN'T apply, but the supplier doesn't seem to care what should.




"2 Do both amounts of shipping come for my account?
Again, will be covered in T&Cs. If they have sent the wrong product they should though replace at no cost to yourself though."

They can't replace it, as they don't have the correct product.


4 What is the legal term for supplying a part that does not fit? I know that a product that doesn't last anywhere near a reasonable time, is called “not fit for purpose”, and was wondering if this would be the same principle.
'Not as described'.

Thanks

arcon5

- Email them stating the item received is materially not as described and state you will be returning the product. Get some form of authorisation code.
- Return the item.
- Then dispute the deductions.

Thats how I would proceed.

If they still refuse to reimburse you, send a letter before action giving them 14 days, if they fail to respond moneyclaim website is extremely user-friendly.

bengasman

arcon5 wrote: »

- Email them stating the item received is materially not as described and state you will be returning the product. Get some form of authorisation code.

Sound advice, though there is one challenge. I sent them an email clearly outlining the how and what, and got an unsigned message back instructing me to send the item back after which a refund would be made IF they were satisfied that it was neither used nor faulty.

Further emails from me went unanswered. Phone is not answered any more either. Chap I spoke to refused to give me his name, and claims he is not the "boss" and that the "boss" is not available. Also refuses to give boss's name.
In short, they are totally evasive.

arcon5

bengasman wrote: »

Sound advice, though there is one challenge. I sent them an email clearly outlining the how and what, and got an unsigned message back instructing me to send the item back after which a refund would be made IF they were satisfied that it was neither used nor faulty.

Further emails from me went unanswered. Phone is not answered any more either. Chap I spoke to refused to give me his name, and claims he is not the "boss" and that the "boss" is not available. Also refuses to give boss's name.
In short, they are totally evasive.

Thats fine. The problem is at the moment you haven't actually been charged the near 40% so you are diputing something thats not happened.

bengasman

So far, I am over £100 short as they sent me a product that can not be fitted legally. As they lied to me over the phone and the best offer I have had will cost me 40%, it seems prudent to make sure I do what is required and avoid doing anything that could hurt my case.
British law can be quite funny, and it is a well known principle that possession is 90% of the law. It seems a good idea to find out exactly what to do before I put myself in the situation where Mr Conmerchant has possession of the product AND my money as at that stage, I will have no proof that the product is not right.

arcon5

Even if they allow you to return it for a period upto 28 days (depending on how long they take to refund) they will have both product and money.

As long as you don't at any point agree to their demands by returning it you are in no way jepodising your case. At some point the product has to go back to them.

You can photograph the product and the serial ID number ect.

If they don't back down your just leading to a point of stalemate. And I can't imagine you ever having a case for a full refund if you are yet to return the product, since I cannot imagine them to agree to arranging a collection.
I believe to even file a chareback card companies require the product to returned (atleast i've known this to be the case with a few people I know, although may not be the general rule).

Flyboy152

bengasman wrote: »

Alas, payed by debit card.

Same principal.

This seems to be the more likely outcome. The question is: what is the "legal" term upon which I build my claim?

Breach of contract and/or not as described.