What do you think of the Distance Selling Regs?

cracklepop

goater78 wrote: »

I think they are massively in the consumers favour and are probably unfair

I agree. I think the seller having to refund any postage costs is particularly unfair. Struggle to see why they should be out of pocket because someone bought something they didn't want / need.

Also, these days, are you really at a disadvantage buying online? Yes, you can't inspect the goods, but in the case of buying something like a DSLR, I'd suggest Amazon customer reviews, Youtube videos, forums etc are infiinitely more helpful than being able to hold the product in a shop whilst listening to someone on minimum wage tell me how many megapixels it has.

bazster

zenmaster wrote: »

Don't get me started on section bl00dy 75 :mad:

Most of these things make sense if you understand the thinking behind them.

The point behind Section 75 is that if a company finances a purchase, it is grossly unfair if the buyer finishes up with the debt but not the goods.

Credit card companies could reduce Section 75 claims if they were fussier about which sales they financed (i.e. they were fussier about which merchants they permitted to use credit card services), but doubtless they have done the arithmetic very thoroughly and concluded that it's cheaper/more profitable to continue paying out the Section 75 claims.

arcon5

bazster wrote: »

Most of these things make sense if you understand the thinking behind them.

The point behind Section 75 is that if a company finances a purchase, it is grossly unfair if the buyer finishes up with the debt but not the goods.

Credit card companies could reduce Section 75 claims if they were fussier about which sales they financed (i.e. they were fussier about which merchants they permitted to use credit card services), but doubtless they have done the arithmetic very thoroughly and concluded that it's cheaper/more profitable to continue paying out the Section 75 claims.

It could also be argued it's grossly unfair a business ends up with the debt for goods they did not receive also.

bazster

arcon5 wrote: »

It could also be argued it's grossly unfair a business ends up with the debt for goods they did not receive also.

I fail to see the connection.

zaax

You can sell to the whole world via mail order, but if you have a shop you can only sell to those going pass your window.

ChrisLJ_2

Have you seen the new changes in the forthcoming Consumer Rights Bill?

It's pretty interesting in how it moves the boundaries.
I would link an analysis, but annoyingly I can't as a new user.


ihl.wragge.com/analysis_8623.asp
Edit: the above is a URL. Not my website, and I'm not affiliated in any way.

DD265

Thanks everybody, it's really interesting to hear what others think on this!

timbo58

Agree that DSR is unfair to businesses.
it seems grossly unfair that a business has to refund postage they have already paid out if a customer has simply changed their mind.

Pinkypants

timbo58 wrote: »

Agree that DSR is unfair to businesses.
it seems grossly unfair that a business has to refund postage they have already paid out if a customer has simply changed their mind.

But if a business "chooses" to sell online, that's the risk they must take. Noone if forcing them to sell online. Bricks and mortor stores just need to work smarter, as lets face it the high street is changing.

As someone also said Web = whole of the country, possible beyond

Brick and mortor store = local catchment.

Online traders have to way up the risk of returns v's the extra business potential.

Forwandert

I think they should be adjusted so if a consumer orders something and changes their mind within the 7 days the refund should be minus all postage and packaging for both inbound and outbound deliveries. The amount of people that will order 3/4 sizes and colours of things knowing it has cost money to send them then send multiple items back is ridiculous. If you went to a store, bought something and changed your mind the store doesn't have to refund your travelling costs for the initial journey so why give extra rights to people that will just sit at home ordering. Its just reducing the high street stores customer flow and incurring the companies extra costs on what should be a simple process with minimal costs.


I think in this day and age most retailers are forced to have an online presence just to keep up worth the competition. It is actually keeping costs up though for some places. Take the discounters for instance that work on lower profit margins if it was profitable they would all be taking orders via the websites. In situations where they are working on say 10p in a £1 profit with the chances that sending the item will end in the item being sent back it's not profitable to do so.