Distance Selling: Consumer does not have to post back

pickpocketlocket

malchish wrote: »

Well, what is YOUR experience?
And I am talking of the current law, not any future hopes and dreams of companies who do not like DSR.
If the law gets revised, my experience will change.
I posted the excerpt from the current regulations that are in force, to let people know their CURRENT rights.

I have both submitted and defended countless small claims actions. It is part of my job. Whilst your understanding of the law in theory is sound, you fail to comprehend how the courts may apply it in practice.

pickpocketlocket

malchish wrote: »

in practice, it is very rare for any issue to reach a court hearing.
I never needed one, actually, over a consumer issue. I would get what i would be satisfied with, before a court case.

So you have never actually experienced a small claims case through the whole process?

malchish

pickpocketlocket wrote: »

So you have never actually experienced a small claims case through the whole process?

As I said, I have extensively experienced disputes with the companies where I had to send letter before action. In my experience it worked every single time, because my demands were strictly lawful.
Please do not claim that I fail to comprehend how law is applied.
If I said that I never NEEDED to be a plaintiff in a small hearing, it does not mean that I do not have experience of what happens there.
I do.
Precisely because I do, I never needed one myself.
Would you please try to not turn the matters into a dispute of my personal life.
I have quoted the current law. The company who does not comply, is in breach. That's it.

System

You missed para 8. As most online shops state in their T&Cs that you can return itemss then that puts the onus on the consumer under para 8 to do that which invokes para 7

Hintza

malchish wrote: »

This is the legislation that retailers hate us to know.

This will be another secret law then.

malchish

!!!!!! wrote: »

You missed para 8. As most online shops state in their T&Cs that you can return itemss then that puts the onus on the consumer under para 8 to do that which invokes para 7

No,
I have not missed anything. Just, if the requirement to return is in T&C, 21 days duty of care is supplemented by 6 months. It only means that you have to look after the item for 6 months, not 21 day.
But most of us do not need to keep the item and the money, right? so it is nearly irrelevant.

You are still under no obligation to send the item back. It is enough to make it available for collection and be prepared to pay the cost of collection. They have to make the full refund within 30 days, even if they have not bothered to collect yet. After this period they are in breach. I am so tired of repeating it. Read the DSR.

Hintza

malchish wrote: »

I am so tired of repeating it. Read the DSR.

So you think it is being clever using a loophole (that might exist) to gain goods from (in the most part) honest companies that are trying to make a living.

If for one will if I order something and through no fault of the company find something unsuitable will return it to them.

I think your moral compass is a bit off course, old !!!!!

Night night.

meer53

Am i the only person who has never had an issue with returning goods or receiving a refund ?

I usually just comply with whatever the retailers returns procedures are, never had an issue. Recently returned some shoes which i didn't like when they arrived, printed off a returns label, got a receipt when i posted them, received my refund minus £2.50 postage as per their t & c's. Delivery was free so i have no objection to paying to send them back as it was my choice.

How do some people end up with so many claims ?

malchish

I think your moral compass is a bit off course, old !!!!!

Night night.[/QUOTE]

This post would be more appropriate at a playground. I think, accusing a fellow poster who just quoted the law is not only ouside the spirit of this forum and, indeed, any forum, but also
shows that consumers knowing their right can really annoy some people... I wonder why?


It is morally right to act by the law. It is not a loophole.
It is a morally right law to prevent dishonest companies from making returns as hard and costly as possible.

malchish

I will explain why it matters a lot to demand that a company collects, not other type of return.
1) When you post by third party means, and they lose or break the item, it is your problem. If you demand that the seller collects from you, the moment their courier arrived- you are deemed to have delivered the goods to them!!!
You do not have to worry!

Of course, if an itme is light and small, and post office is around the corner, and you can go to the post office without taking a day off... - you will be happy to return.
But if it is a £400 pram, say, and you have a 3 day old baby, and no way you can lift and baby and the box with the pram and carry to a post office... and it is hard and unsafe to organise your own courier...
Then do not let the company to fob you off telling you that you cannot get a refund under DSR!
Just cancel in writing and tell them that the goods are available for collection. If they want the item back, they will have to send their courier - you give the item and record the process of giving the item to the courier, and get a receipt. Done! No post-offices, no worries about loss or damage!

I believe, people who may oppose this useful law, are rather ...wrong.