How long do a company have to give me a refund?

arcon5

bod1467 wrote: »

A minor point - return of goods under DSR and refunds are not intrinsically linked. i.e. seller must refund within 30 days but buyer is not obligated to have returned the goods in that time frame in order to receive the refund.

Although thats correct, in reality you would be very lucky to get a refund if this was the case.

vaderag

arcon5 wrote: »

Answer = due diligance

Some of us perform this BEFORE ordering goods.

You order, they begin processing the order, you cancel (which is absolutely fair enough! You have a right to do so, so no dispute there) then wan't them to completely halt what will be semi-automated systems to stop one order out of the hundreds likely being processed.


When goods are in transit (whether it to you or back to the their warehouse -- this case to you and back to them anything upto 5 working days) they shouldn't have to refund you. Once the goods get to them this also gives them the opportunity to inspect the goods, then authorise the refund.

You're missing the point entirely. I cancelled before they had shipped. 4 days before it had shipped. I received a cancellation confirmation. But they shipped and charged anyway, as they claim their system can't cancel while something is out of stock. That is just bad practice. Dont care whether it's right legally or not, it shouldnt be allowed.

And due diligence was performed, it's just that they quietly hide the fact the the Harmony 900 doesnt do sequencing, which it's little brother the Harmony One (costing significantly less) does. Considering these are nearly identical products that's a bit oversight and clearly one they're not prepared to mention on their website.

wealdroam

vaderag wrote: »

Dont care whether it's right legally or not, it shouldnt be allowed.

Then contact your MP and get the law changed.
The Distance Selling Regulations are quite clear on this point.

vaderag wrote: »

And due diligence was performed, it's just that they quietly hide the fact the the Harmony 900 doesnt do sequencing, which it's little brother the Harmony One (costing significantly less) does. Considering these are nearly identical products that's a bit oversight and clearly one they're not prepared to mention on their website.

Clearly your 'due diligence' wasn't diligent enough.
Not many companies list functions that one of their products doesn't perform.
Did they state it would do sequencing? If so, then of course you have a case.

vaderag

wealdroam wrote: »

Clearly your 'due diligence' wasn't diligent enough.
Not many companies list functions that one of their products doesn't perform.
Did they state it would do sequencing? If so, then of course you have a case.

Well, if you look at the comparison page, you would assume that the 900 has everything the One has and more. There are no missing ticks. This is misleading.

http://www.logitech.com/en-gb/60/&view=34?A1=1&compProducts=3898&A2=2&A3=3&compProducts=5874&A4=4&A5=5&A6=6&A7=7&A8=8&A9=9&A10=10&A11=11

Either way, this is supposed to be a consumer help forum, instead it seems to be full of "holier-than-thou" trolls...

If you don't have something helpful to say then go away. Fed up of unhelpful idiots on the internet. My question was answered in post 4, why continue the thread by laying into the consumer when actually the company is at fault.

fluffnutter

ThumbRemote wrote: »

On another thread you've been telling someone how it's unethical for them to try and get out of paying for something. Funny how there's no mention of the ethics of a business keeping hold of someone's money for much longer than is necessary.

Do you have anything useful to contribute to these board, or are you just here to criticise and blame people who post?

arcon5 is a very helpful and measured poster who doesn't 'criticise and blame' people. It's not 'unethical' for a company to keep hold of someone's money for 'longer than is necessary'. By law, they have 30 days to refund an order cancelled under DSR.

It is, however, unethical to know and accept you owe money for goods or services received, but then, due to some technical irregularity, try to avoid paying that money.

Ethics have nothing to do with the first scenario, and everything to do with the second.

vaderag

fluffnutter wrote: »

It is, however, unethical to know and accept you owe money for goods or services received, but then, due to some technical irregularity, try to avoid paying that money.

What utter rubbish. I don't accept that I owe the money as I cancelled before dispatch. Either way, they have taken it and I paid. They are giving me a refund, which is fine, and I have made them aware that they should note that this feature is missing. Honestly, i can't believe people are trying to suggest that I am to blame in this.

fluffnutter

vaderag wrote: »

What utter rubbish. I don't accept that I owe the money as I cancelled before dispatch. Either way, they have taken it and I paid. They are giving me a refund, which is fine, and I have made them aware that they should note that this feature is missing. Honestly, i can't believe people are trying to suggest that I am to blame in this.

Sorry! I wasn't talking about you! I was talking about the example that ThumbRemote was using to moan at arcon5. It was a different thread!

This...

On another thread you've been telling someone how it's unethical for them to try and get out of paying for something.

... (from ThumbRemote to arcon5) was the comment I was referring to! Not you!

vaderag

fluffnutter wrote: »

Sorry! I wasn't talking about you! I was talking about the example that ThumbRemote was using to moan at arcon5. It was a different thread!

Oh right... i guess you're forgiven then

ThumbRemote

fluffnutter wrote: »

It's not 'unethical' for a company to keep hold of someone's money for 'longer than is necessary'.

Isn't is? I can understand a few days delay for processing, but I consider it quite unethical to hold onto someone else's money longer than is necessary.

How come if a consumer would use a legal loophole to avoid paying a business it would be unethical, but a business is only following the law when they delay refunding a consumer?

fluffnutter

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Isn't is? I can understand a few days delay for processing, but I consider it quite unethical to hold onto someone else's money longer than is necessary.

How come if a consumer would use a legal loophole to avoid paying a business it would be unethical, but a business is only following the law when they delay refunding a consumer?

Cos them's the rules! Most stuff is in the big guy's favour. Capitalism innit.