What are my rights in this situation?

Flyboy152

bris wrote: »

Really? Where in the legisaltion does it say that?



3.58

No. Consumers are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods

while in their possession as discussed in paragraph 3.44. The DSRs

allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would

in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the

goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable

care of the goods. In these circumstances you cannot insist that
consumers return the goods as new or in their original packaging.
You may ask consumers to return goods with the original packaging,
but you cannot insist on this. In the case of goods such as earrings
that have hygiene seals, you may require consumers to exercise

reasonable care by not removing the seals when examining them.

I think you need to read the guidelines a little further; seals are dealt with in a different section. Have a read, then come back. Besides, sales tags are not seals.

If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the

goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable

care of the goods

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

3.58

No. Consumers are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods

while in their possession as discussed in paragraph 3.44. The DSRs
allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would
in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the
goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable
care of the goods. In these circumstances you cannot insist that
consumers return the goods as new or in their original packaging.
You may ask consumers to return goods with the original packaging,
but you cannot insist on this. In the case of goods such as earrings
that have hygiene seals, you may require consumers to exercise

reasonable care by not removing the seals when examining them.

*sigh* you just dont get it do you? Its stating that the DSR's do not hinder the consumer from opening the goods and trying them out. If you were ONLY allowed to examine them in the exact same circumstances you would in a shop, dont you think the DSRs would stipulate that?

Further to the point, different shops will allow you to test products to different extents.....so which shops policy would they go with?

As has been said probably dozens of times now, the OP's right to cancel is unconditional. You do realise what unconditional means right? Without limitation or conditions.

Flyboy152

lalaland11 wrote: »

OP what is wrong with the bag?

It doesn't matter what is wrong with it. There is no requirement under the DSRs to have a reason.

By taking it on a small walk into town you used the bag not tested it.

The DSRs allow the goods to be used, it says so in the guidance notes.

If i came on here saying i paid £90 for a dress and decided to go out for a drink in it to try it out and now i wanted a refund, would you agree that i should be able to return it for a refund?

But the OP has not bought a dress, they have bought a rucksack.

£90 is a large ammount of money to spend on a bag when you ron benefits and i agree its a right pain when you spend such a large ammount and then are dissapoited by the product but tbf i do think the company is in the right to refuse a refund.

Not according to the regulations.

Flyboy152

lalaland11 wrote: »

Yes i can clearly see that but i used a dress as an example.

But the dress analogy has no relevance. The OP didn't take the rucksack on a night out and spill drinks on it. He examined and tested the goods, as allowed by the regulations.

unholyangel

Must be a cold day in hell.....me and flyboy are actually agreeing possibly for the first time :eek:

unholyangel

lalaland11 wrote: »

Did i say on a night out spilling drinks on it? NO! i said i 'tested' it by wearing it out for a drink. If you were a women and had ordered a dress online how would you test it?

I'm going to say this again (and in fact as many times necessary).

The right to cancel is unconditional. The only duty the consumer has is to retain the goods and take reasonable care of them. If the consumer fails to do this, technically by law the retailer still needs to make a refund and then start a claim for breach of statutory duty as the only deduction he is allowed to make from the refund is the direct cost of recovering the goods (if this is in T&C's).

However if the consumer has taken reasonable care of the goods, it is likely the retailer would fail in his breach claim.

Everything else is irrelevant. It may not be fair on the business but we've often acknowledged on MSE that quite a bit of consumer law (especially the DSR's) are largely biased towards the consumer.

Flyboy152

lalaland11 wrote: »

Did i say on a night out spilling drinks on it? NO! i said i 'tested' it by wearing it out for a drink. If you were a women and had ordered a dress online how would you test it?

As I have never bought a dress in my life, let alone tested one, I wouldn't have a clue.

The point is, the OP tested the goods, rejected them, requested a refund and has been refused it on grounds that are not allowed under the regulations. He has not been refused a refund on the method of examination or testing, but on the point of removing sales tags. The regulations do no allow refusal on these grounds.

bris

unholyangel wrote: »

*sigh* you just dont get it do you? .

Yes I get it very well, I have read the DSR and I know the OPs legal position.
The retailer disagrees and believes he has not taken reasonable care of the goods.
This doesn't matter and I concede that point, but not all retailers are prepared to follow the DSR word for word and offer refunds on used goods and who can blame them. To some retailers the DSR are unfair and they will need to be forced to comply, the OP can sue to protect their statutory rights but then the retailer can counter sue to protect theirs.

Flyboy152

bris wrote: »

Yes I get it very well, I have read the DSR and I know the OPs legal position.
The retailer disagrees and believes he has not taken reasonable care of the goods.
This doesn't matter and I concede that point, but not all retailers are prepared to follow the DSR word for word and offer refunds on used goods and who can blame them. To some retailers the DSR are unfair and they will need to be forced to comply, the OP can sue to protect their statutory rights but then the retailer can counter sue to protect theirs.

On what grounds? If the OP successfully sues for their rights, the seller will have lost any ability to sue on the grounds of the OP not taking reasonable car of the goods.

Rosa_Alba, if you are still reading this (although I wouldn't blame you if you weren't, going by the way you have ben treated on this thread), if the seller is still refusing you a refund, contact your debit/credit card company for assistance. Explain to them that you have been trying to exercise your statutory rights, but have been denied them by the seller. They should be able to refund your money via the chargeback terms on your card (for the pedants amongst us; yes, I know this is not covered by section seventy-five) and then they will pursue them on your behalf.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

Yes I get it very well, I have read the DSR and I know the OPs legal position.
The retailer disagrees and believes he has not taken reasonable care of the goods.
This doesn't matter and I concede that point, but not all retailers are prepared to follow the DSR word for word and offer refunds on used goods and who can blame them. To some retailers the DSR are unfair and they will need to be forced to comply, the OP can sue to protect their statutory rights but then the retailer can counter sue to protect theirs.

I have stated before my own position. I dont see a problem with removing tags as they are not part of the goods themselves and if i were in a shop and the tags came off, i wouldnt expect to be charged for the item in question. I do think taking it outside for a walk to town is excessive however, if the goods are still in brand new condition this is irrelevant as DSR's do not state you are only allowed to examine to the same extent you would be allowed in a shop (more to the point, if the retailer were a market stall......walking outside with the bag wouldnt be unreasonable) except if the retailer were to claim breach of statutory duty.....which obviously the condition of the items would be relevant to. However, whether its morally right or wrong, the OP is entitled to a refund by law.

Only the OP knows the condition of the goods. If they have damaged them in any way, i would advise against chasing this any further. If they are in perfect condition, nothing to stop them sending a written complaint to the company in question.