What are my rights in this situation?

BlueAngelCV

I accept the position as those more knowledgeable have explained it that under DSR the OP is entitled to test the item, to include removing tags and taking it out but I am wondering whether people consider this to be fair?

Someone provided a dress analogy previously. Would you consider it acceptable to buy a dress, wear it for a night out on the town and then return it? I don't see how that is any different to the OP situation but I would never dream of doing that.

It seems to me that the interpretation of the legislation provides the consumer with rights which they were never intended to have due to poor drafting. People are quick to shout "unfair terms" in the consumer's favour but rarely the other way around (yes I am aware that the UTCA doesn't apply here but morally the principle is the same IMO).

Then again if I am returning something because I don't want it I never try and get my postage back because that seems hugely unfair on the retailer so maybe I am being too reasonable!

Flyboy152

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

I accept the position as those more knowledgeable have explained it that under DSR the OP is entitled to test the item, to include removing tags and taking it out but I am wondering whether people consider this to be fair?

Someone provided a dress analogy previously. Would you consider it acceptable to buy a dress, wear it for a night out on the town and then return it? I don't see how that is any different to the OP situation but I would never dream of doing that.

It seems to me that the interpretation of the legislation provides the consumer with rights which they were never intended to have due to poor drafting. People are quick to shout "unfair terms" in the consumer's favour but rarely the other way around (yes I am aware that the UTCA doesn't apply here but morally the principle is the same IMO).

Then again if I am returning something because I don't want it I never try and get my postage back because that seems hugely unfair on the retailer so maybe I am being too reasonable!

Would you buy a car without test driving it first?

BlueAngelCV

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Would you buy a car without test driving it first?

Well I don't drive so...

I don't think that's a comparable example though. It is accepted practice that cars are test driven. IMO you shouldn't be able to "use" an item because you've purchased it online any more than you would be if you purchased it in a shop.

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Would you buy a car without test driving it first?

Please advise on how that helps the OP.

And to quote you...

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But the OP has not bought a [STRIKE]dress[/STRIKE] car, they have bought a rucksack.

I think you are getting confused.

bod1467

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Would you buy a car without test driving it first?

Some people do - they buy a car from an overseas supplier because it is cheaper than buying in the uk. However they will usually have been to a local retailer to test drive a similar (but not the exact same) vehicle.

tomwakefield

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

I accept the position as those more knowledgeable have explained it that under DSR the OP is entitled to test the item, to include removing tags and taking it out but I am wondering whether people consider this to be fair?

Someone provided a dress analogy previously. Would you consider it acceptable to buy a dress, wear it for a night out on the town and then return it? I don't see how that is any different to the OP situation but I would never dream of doing that.

It seems to me that the interpretation of the legislation provides the consumer with rights which they were never intended to have due to poor drafting. People are quick to shout "unfair terms" in the consumer's favour but rarely the other way around (yes I am aware that the UTCA doesn't apply here but morally the principle is the same IMO).

Then again if I am returning something because I don't want it I never try and get my postage back because that seems hugely unfair on the retailer so maybe I am being too reasonable!

I think it's very biased in favour of the consumer, but imagine it wasn't unconditional. More unscrupulous online shops would find an excuse not to refund every time, effectively making that element of DSR worthless.

Flyboy152

bod1467 wrote: »

Some people do - they buy a car from an overseas supplier because it is cheaper than buying in the uk. However they will usually have been to a local retailer to test drive a similar (but not the exact same) vehicle.

The point (which you have obviously missed) is that an item of far greater value is allowed to be tested, by using it first, so using a rucksack, before accepting it, is not unreasonable.

bod1467

I didn't miss the inference at all.

Don't you like it when people take your comments slightly out of context? You don't seem to mind doing that to others.

sarahg1969

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Would you buy a car without test driving it first?

The OP didn't test the rucksack before she bought it, though. She 'tested' it afterwards. You don't test drive a car after you've purchased it.

meer53

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Are your bank's terms and conditions identical to all others?

I would say that breach of contract would cover it.

You're the one who is confused.

Visa Chargeback regulations apply to ALL card issuers, they don't differ from bank to bank. They cover purchases on Credit and Debit cards. As per my previous post, this situation is not covered by ANY Visa Chargeback Code.

Breach of Contract only comes into play when a Section 75 claim is made by the OP. (Only valid for purchases made using a Credit card) You cannot action a chargeback for breach of contract but you can make a Section 75 claim if this can be established.

I think you're mixing up your Visa Chargeback Regulations and your Section 75 claims. They are 2 completely separate procedures.

As i explained previously, the Chargeback for Non Recipt of Refund would only apply IF the OP had returned the goods, the retailer had agreed to refund (which they haven't yet) and that said refund wasn't showing in the OP's bank account. As this hasn't happened, there is no chargeback right which covers the OP's situation.