Clarification of reg 17 of Distance Selling Regs

BeerMonster

That is a good question. They haven't refused they said they would refund but haven't and now they are ignoring me.

They said they had the sofa in stock when I called them before ordering then made excuses and bare faced lies for eight weeks before delivering a sofa which on closer inspection turned out to be second hand.

I didn't even get an apology, just more lies. I can only conclude that they either intend to go bust or are pushing it to the limit to be spiteful. A company search has shown that the guy who runs the store registered another company with a similar but slightly different name last year at the same address.

BeerMonster

arcon5 wrote: »

op, you seem to miss some important points already made..

although you may have grounds to reject it under SOGA or the DSR regulations, you need to decide on what grounds you are rejecting it. The difference being, if rejecting under DSRs then (depending on their terms) it is likely YOU that must return the goods to them at your expense. If rejecting under SOGA then it is their responsibility to bare the costs of return - in which case S17 of DSRs will not apply as you have not used these rights to reject the goods.

So long as my rejection of the sofa is consistent with the requirements of both then I don't have to choose. It is only if I do something that is consistent with one but not the other am I then forced down one road. In this case if SOGA says I have to look after it and DSRs say I can smash it with a hammer after 21 days then presumably if I smash it with a hammer then I lose the right to reject under SOGA. I don't have any such conflicts that I know of at the moment and if i was to go to court for the refund and compensation I could claim a refund under one and the compensation under the other but I couldn't use the two to claim twice. Or at least that is how the legislation I work with works (Environmental Health). Certainly the Office of Fair Trading guidance for retailers says that the vendor is responsible for the cost of the return if they send the wrong or defective item so I'm not going to sweat that especially since the company already agreed to collect it (I have it in an email). I doubt that any court would entertain any claim for cost of collection of a defective item from a customer. Still, you never know. Getting my money back is my biggest concern just now. Followed by getting the thing out of my livingroom.

If it comes down to it, I'll borrow a van and return it myself but i'd rather send it to landfill than give this company the satisfaction.

Anyway, Thanks to everyone for their comments/ interest in my problem. If I manage to stumble accross a good solution, i'll tell you all about it.

Time for dinner!

unholyangel

BeerMonster wrote: »

So long as my rejection of the sofa is consistent with the requirements of both then I don't have to choose. It is only if I do something that is consistent with one but not the other am I then forced down one road. In this case if SOGA says I have to look after it and DSRs say I can smash it with a hammer after 21 days then presumably if I smash it with a hammer then I lose the right to reject under SOGA. I don't have any such conflicts that I know of at the moment and if i was to go to court for the refund and compensation I could claim a refund under one and the compensation under the other but I couldn't use the two to claim twice. Or at least that is how the legislation I work with works (Environmental Health). Certainly the Office of Fair Trading guidance for retailers says that the vendor is responsible for the cost of the return if they send the wrong or defective item so I'm not going to sweat that especially since the company already agreed to collect it (I have it in an email). I doubt that any court would entertain any claim for cost of collection of a defective item from a customer. Still, you never know. Getting my money back is my biggest concern just now. Followed by getting the thing out of my livingroom.

If it comes down to it, I'll borrow a van and return it myself but i'd rather send it to landfill than give this company the satisfaction.

Anyway, Thanks to everyone for their comments/ interest in my problem. If I manage to stumble accross a good solution, i'll tell you all about it.

Time for dinner!

No one here has said that. What I personally have said is that they could file a counter claim for the value of the sofa if you failed to take the appropriate steps I have outlined in previous posts. And no one on here intends you any harm! If anything we're trying to help so that you do not possibly put yourself in a weaker position.

As for OFT guidance on DSRs......that incorporates SoGA (aswell as basic contract law) into its guidance. Everything in OFT's guidance is not explicitly the DSRs.

If you are intending to take the advice given on here, I would suggest in your letter state that you have rejected the delivered goods as they are not as described or of suitable quality.That they have previously stated they would collect and have failed to do so. That if they do not collect by x date (taking into account the advice I have given about time restrictions) you will have no choice but to dispose of/sell (include whatever is relevant) the goods.

Then give them a list of dates you are available to have them come and collect it and tell them to give you prior notice of when they are collecting (so you dont have to sit in on the days you list).

If you do all of the above, any claim for breach of statutory duty should (imo) fail.