What do you think of the Distance Selling Regs?

Matty007

zenmaster wrote: »

Probably fair enough as regards faulty or "not as described" items but ridiculously weighted in favour of those idiots that buy things they don't really want.

• 7 days to notify of intent to reject, if informed of that fact, 3 months if not.
• No requirement to return in original packaging, let alone resalable condition.
• In fact, no requirement to return at all.

The purpose of the DSRs is intended to allow the consumer to inspect the goods as if they were in a shop. I bet 90% of purchasers have already inspected the goods in a shop (abusing the overheads involved in running that shop) then ordered cheaper online.

It's a primary example of the nanny state absolving anyone from their personal responsibilities. Whatever happened to "Caveat Emptor"?

I guarantee that if these regulations did not exist people would be a lot more diligent in their purchases.

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

Why shouldn't the retailer burden the risk, when selling an item to a consumer that hasn't yet even touched the item they think they wish to purchase.

There are lots of advantages, including decreased costs to the retailer and an ever increasing market for many online businesses, so implementing an effective returns policy within the DSR should not be a problem.

There are lots of difficulties being an independent retailer, but in the grand scheme of things the DSR shouldnt be a major one.

arcon5

A decent photographer and some effective copyright could make the crappiest of items look decent and expensive. At least when buying from a shop you can physically inspect a product and make your own mind up without relying on a sales pitch written by somebody who's goal is to sell you whatever they can for as much as they can get away with.

I love DSRs (albeit use them seldomly), it gives you that peace of mind needed when buying at a distance... but needs tweaking to offer better protection for business owners. My suggestions would be:

• Link the return and condition of the item to the rights to a refund.
• Place time limits on the return.
• Where premium delivery services have been selected, the ability for the retailer to only refund the standard postage (I believe this was going to be in place in 2013, not sure it is now).
• Change the 3 month 7 days rule to something more realistic.

GemBlueTopaz1984

I bought my OH a wallet from an online company paid £4.95 delivery on it, I bought it because my OH current wallet didn't have a zipped compartment for coins and it was annoying him, I bought this particular wallet as the picture showed a zipped coin compartment and the description listed it as a feature, what arrived looked the same on the outside but only had placed for cards and notes on the inside, I had to return it at my cost and wasn't refunded postage so it effectively cost me £6.55 and I have nothing to show for it.

wealdroam

GemBlueTopaz1984 wrote: »

I bought my OH a wallet from an online company paid £4.95 delivery on it, I bought it because my OH current wallet didn't have a zipped compartment for coins and it was annoying him, I bought this particular wallet as the picture showed a zipped coin compartment and the description listed it as a feature, what arrived looked the same on the outside but only had placed for cards and notes on the inside, I had to return it at my cost and wasn't refunded postage so it effectively cost me £6.55 and I have nothing to show for it.

Regulation 14 of the DSRs says you should have received a refund of all monies paid.

The OFT's guide to the DSRs says (on page 25)...

What specifically do I have to refund to the consumer if they cancel?
3.48 The DSRs require you to refund any money paid by or on behalf of the consumer in relation to the contract to the person who made the payment. This means the full price of the goods, or deposit or prepayment made, including the cost of delivery.

arcon5

In addition to the above, the item was 'not as described' and the seller should have covered return costs also.

Tina20

I think it is fair and necessary to be honest.

Buying something which you cannot see, cannot try on etc is so risky. DSR's make sure that the consumer is happy with their purchase.

In a normal retail setting, the consumer can make the decision on the spot, so DSR's don't apply BUT the shop could have massive overheads.
Buying online, the business does NOT have massive over heads but has to abide by DSR's.

The online sellers need to view possible returns via DSR's as overheads. An unfortunate but necessary part of distance selling.

DSR's are the fairest way to do things in my opinion.

halibut2209

arcon5 wrote: »

In addition to the above, the item was 'not as described' and the seller should have covered return costs also.

This.

This is a Sales of Goods Act issue, not a DSR issue. The item wasn't as described so they are liable for retrieving the wallet.

mo786uk

The Consuemr Rights Bill (implementing a European Directive) will shift the balance back to businesses somewhat - in that consuemrs will have to return goods before a refudn is made.

IMO with regard to postage they hsould change it so that it only applies if the product is misdescribed - i.e the business hsould only be liable if its their fault for not providing a good description. the problem is that the current law udner SOGA makes it a faff to prove an item is not as described - so the DSR act as a set rule to favour the consumer.

arcon5

DSRs state this:

(5) Subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), the supplier may make a charge, not exceeding the direct costs of recovering any goods supplied under the contract, where a term of the contract provides that the consumer must return any goods supplied if he cancels the contract under regulation 10 but the consumer does not comply with this provision or returns the goods at the expense of the supplier.
(6) Paragraph (5) shall not apply where—
(a)the consumer cancels in circumstances where he has the right to reject the goods under a term of the contract, including a term implied by virtue of any enactment, or
(b)the term requiring the consumer to return any goods supplied if he cancels the contract is an “unfair term” within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

So the retailer cannot deduct postage costs where the implied terms of the contract have been breached, such as those imposed by the Sales of Goods Act. Although this refers to cases where the retailer arranges restoration of the goods - not sure if there is anything similar about reimbursement of postage costs where the buyer returns the goods (other than that within SoGA of course).

derrick

halibut2209 wrote: »

This.

This is a Sales of Goods Act issue, not a DSR issue. The item wasn't as described so they are liable for retrieving the wallet.

It is also covered under the DSR's.

"From page 27; - Who pays for returning the goods if the consumer cancels an order?
3.55 If you want the consumer to return the goods and to pay for that return, you must make it clear in the contract and as part of the required written information – see paragraph 3.10. If the consumer then fails to return the goods, or sends them at your expense, you can charge them the direct cost to you of the return, even if you have already refunded the consumer’s money. You are not allowed to make any further charges, such as a restocking charge or an administration charge.

3.56 If you did not include these details in the required written information then you cannot charge anything. See paragraph 3.10. You can never require consumers to pay the cost of returning substitute goods – see paragraph 3.1 for more information.

3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances."




.