Retailer charging for returned items

nibelung

I've checked up the basics, and I know that the Sales of Goods Act allows you to return a faulty item to the retailer within 6 months and that they have to prove that there was no fault.

However, what happens when the retailer claims there is no fault?

I've ordered things from scan.co.uk and they have a policy that says if you return an item to them as faulty, and they consider it not faulty, not only will they refuse to replace/refund it, but they will charge you £20+VAT for 'testing fees' as well as a delivery charge to return it to you.

Is this legal? It seems to me that because the retailer is legally obliged to prove that the item isn't faulty, this isn't a 'service' they can charge for. The result seems to be that if you have bought something that shows intermittent faults (as is common with electrical devices) that cannot be very easily reproduced, they will refuse to help, and will charge you £35+ to return it to you.

Anyone sure on where the law stands?

bris

If there is no fault, then yes they can charge postage and testing fees. They are using their resoures to test an item that is not faulty, so as far as they are concerned they have done nothing wrong to be out of pocket.
Make sure you put in the RMA notes that the fault is intermittent and that you describe the fault exactly, including how long it takes to show itself.

nibelung

I don't mean about returning an item that is not faulty, but one which is faulty, but which the retailer says is not.

They've said that if they can't reproduce the fault in their tests then they will charge testing fees and delivery to return it no matter what. I explained there was an intermittent fault and the item may work for several hours without any issue, but they've effectively said tough luck.

arcon5

Get your own independant report on it, if this proves there is an inherent fault present they should refund the fees and the cost of getting the report.

But before that, make an official complaint and have them reinspect the goods. With any luck a second attempt will suffice.

nibelung

Getting an independent report would no doubt cost a lot more. I would have thought that because the retailer has to prove the fault is not because of the consumer in the first 6 months that they can't just say 'we tested it and found nothing' - that's not proof (the retailer isn't automatically right).

wealdroam

nibelung wrote: »

Getting an independent report would no doubt cost a lot more. I would have thought that because the retailer has to prove the fault is not because of the consumer in the first 6 months that they can't just say 'we tested it and found nothing' - that's not proof (the retailer isn't automatically right).

OK. Then tell them they haven't proved it has an inherent fault then.
Just out of interest, how does that help your cause?


If they are telling you that they have proved that the thing was not faulty at the point of sale, your only option is to prove them wrong, isn't it?

nibelung

wealdroam wrote: »

OK. Then tell them they haven't proved it has an inherent fault then.
Just out of interest, how does that help your cause?


If they are telling you that they have proved that the thing was not faulty at the point of sale, your only option is to prove them wrong, isn't it?

But as I understand it, the law says that it's the retailer that has to prove it, not the consumer (and after six months it's the consumer who has to prove things). I can't find any clarity on what is meant by proof. If the consumer has identified a fault, but the retailer says they can't reproduce it, where do things stand? For example, if the fault only happens once every 24 hours, and the retailer is only prepared to test for 10 minutes, then clearly it's unlikely it will ever show up.

mo786uk

Then you will have to get your own tets report.

I dont think you can insist on them continually testing it until they find a fault.

However if it goes to a court it shoudl bode well on you if you explained to them how the fault occurs and they didnt bother testing it as wel las they may have done.

wealdroam

nibelung wrote: »

But as I understand it, the law says that it's the retailer that has to prove it, not the consumer (and after six months it's the consumer who has to prove things). I can't find any clarity on what is meant by proof. If the consumer has identified a fault, but the retailer says they can't reproduce it, where do things stand? For example, if the fault only happens once every 24 hours, and the retailer is only prepared to test for 10 minutes, then clearly it's unlikely it will ever show up.

If you and the retailer cannot agree, then the next step is court.
Let a judge decide whether the seller's 'proof' is good or not.

If you are convinced you would win that test, then send a letter before action, and prepare for the court case.

I would've thought it would help your case if you could stand before the court and say "the seller insists that there is no fault, however I have had my own tests carried out which prove that the thing is inherently faulty".

Much better than going there and saying "the seller hasn't proved it is not inherently faulty sir".

Of course, add the costs of this report to your claim.