Distance Selling: Consumer does not have to post back

malchish

Night night, Hintza,

The quantity of your posts and the level of aggression is telling...Do you do it full time? How about not to be unwelcome to other posters?

Nobody pays me for posting here, that's for sure.

I just want to help people who are frequently intimidated by bolshy claims and baseless denials by businesses who do not like the law.

transient

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.

Dont see the point in your post letting people know their current rights, it is out there for people to see and more than accessible on here.

malchish wrote: »

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.

You do fail to comprehend. What the law states and HOW IT IS APPLIED are two totally different things. You obviously do not have any experience in this as you would know the distinct difference between the two.

malchish

transient wrote: »

Dont see the point in your post letting people know their current rights, it is out there for people to see and more than accessible on here.

You do fail to comprehend. What the law states and HOW IT IS APPLIED are two totally different things. You obviously do not have any experience in this as you would know the distinct difference between the two.

Could you post without accusations, negative remarks, etc? please?
No , I DO comprehend.
1) These materials are not that easy to find. Otherwise everybody would have known it all.
To find these, one needs to look carefully, to know how to read legal jargon, and to spend tiem and effort.
This is the point. If you do not see the point, I am sorry for you. I also do not see any point in you making a posting just to air your not seeing the point. Do you have something material to say?
2) The law is applied well, and rightly. If you have an example to the contrary, please quote the court hearing reference.
it applies as it stands - and that it why it is so important to make consumers aware of their rights, the rights that will be applied fairly by courts.

malchish

The question is very simple: do UK companies HAVE TO comply with the UK law?
Or, should they hide behind low knowledge of the public, and behind some internet anonimous opinions about "application" of the law?
I would think twice and hard about motiffs of any poster who wants to passionately refute the fact that, under DSR, companies MUST give the customers the option to opt for collection if asked to.
The law stands as quoted. Please comply. End of.

arcon5

Put the text book down pal and join the rest of us here in the real world

lucy03

transient wrote: »

Dont see the point in your post letting people know their current rights, it is out there for people to see and more than accessible on here.

You do fail to comprehend. What the law states and HOW IT IS APPLIED are two totally different things. You obviously do not have any experience in this as you would know the distinct difference between the two.

I sympathise with this, they are very different.

I've been present at many small claims court hearings where some decisions are made that I would never have expected. But a more common problem is occasionally the never-ending delays which lead to more court dates and more hassle.

And judges can be unsympathetic. They'll still apply the law, but they can do it in a very unhelpful way, over a long period of time.

I'd personally advise that unless there's a reason why an item can't be returned, maybe it's heavy or the company is being unhelpful, it's best to arrange return delivery using a trackable and insured method regardless of any consumer rights in the Distance Selling Regulations.

A letter before action and court case is fine in theory, but all you're likely to get back is the money you would have got anyway by returning the items. And there's the disadvantage in taking the time to fill in court papers, potentially getting stressed about proceedings, see the proceedings delayed and so on. And relatively simple as small claims court procedures are, there aren't many people I've seen who don't get stressed or hassled at the time they spend on it.

And if the company was being unhelpful at the outset due to financial reasons, the many weeks court action might have taken might mean the company has gone under.

Just my opinion.

transient

malchish wrote: »

Could you post without accusations, negative remarks, etc? please?
No , I DO comprehend.
1) These materials are not that easy to find. Otherwise everybody would have known it all.
To find these, one needs to look carefully, to know how to read legal jargon, and to spend tiem and effort.
This is the point. If you do not see the point, I am sorry for you. I also do not see any point in you making a posting just to air your not seeing the point. Do you have something material to say?
2) The law is applied well, and rightly. If you have an example to the contrary, please quote the court hearing reference.
it applies as it stands - and that it why it is so important to make consumers aware of their rights, the rights that will be applied fairly by courts.

Accusations and negative? The accustation is correct as I have experience of the contrary to what you stipulate and it is not a negative post but factual.

malchish wrote: »

The question is very simple: do UK companies HAVE TO comply with the UK law?
Or, should they hide behind low knowledge of the public, and behind some internet anonimous opinions about "application" of the law?
I would think twice and hard about motiffs of any poster who wants to passionately refute the fact that, under DSR, companies MUST give the customers the option to opt for collection if asked to.
The law stands as quoted. Please comply. End of.

The low knowledge of people is not the companies fault, it is the consumers. regardless whether you are purchasing a penny sweet from the corner shop or something more expensive it is in your interests to make yourself aware of the law purtaining to that contract and any T&C's which are lawful or unlawful as the case may be.

The issue here is you dont know the difference between the law and how it is applied. It is never applied always in the same way, it is open to interpretation, this can be due to many different variables. Therefore a decision based on law does not always result in the same decision, this is where test cases come from. As mentioned above by another poster, they have been astounded by some rulings in SCC and I have seen many myself, this is from experience which you do not have as you have already said. You have been successful in your LBA's becaue it is more likely cheaper for them to refund you then have a company lawyer or to hire one for attendance at court.

Your initial post is flawed anyway as it gives false information to people who may read it.

What if someone from here ordered a magazine online?
What if they ordered flowers?

This is why most companies now employ a restocking fee similar to the cost of what it costs in postage

bris

OP your forgeting one thing, the retailer can counter sue, their rights are breached by not getting the goods back, yes that is in there too. So you can be as clever as you want but the bottom line is they cancel each other out.

malchish

arcon5 wrote: »

Put the text book down pal and join the rest of us here in the real world

The real world is that, when a really valuable information appears on any of the forums, there will be posters whose goal is to confuse this information and to exhaust the OP by countless personal remarks and negative comments, to provoke an OP, etc.
This practice is well known, and has a name.
The real world is that every company has to comply with the law, if they do not, there will be people who will:
1) Get their refunds anyway
2) Name and shame such non-complying companies on the internet.
I have pals in the real world, quite enough.On here I merely quoted the current enforceable law to help people who get abused by internet stores.

malchish

transient wrote: »

Accusations and negative? The accustation is correct as I have experience of the contrary to what you stipulate and it is not a negative post but factual.

The low knowledge of people is not the companies fault, it is the consumers. regardless whether you are purchasing a penny sweet from the corner shop or something more expensive it is in your interests to make yourself aware of the law purtaining to that contract and any T&C's which are lawful or unlawful as the case may be.

The issue here is you dont know the difference between the law and how it is applied. It is never applied always in the same way, it is open to interpretation, this can be due to many different variables. Therefore a decision based on law does not always result in the same decision, this is where test cases come from. As mentioned above by another poster, they have been astounded by some rulings in SCC and I have seen many myself, this is from experience which you do not have as you have already said. You have been successful in your LBA's becaue it is more likely cheaper for them to refund you then have a company lawyer or to hire one for attendance at court.

Your initial post is flawed anyway as it gives false information to people who may read it.

What if someone from here ordered a magazine online?
What if they ordered flowers?

This is why most companies now employ a restocking fee similar to the cost of what it costs in postage

How patronising!
How do YOU know that I do not know the difference? Maybe you know? What is the fact that there was NO court case so far that made a company who did not comply with DSR win.
A poster does not have to report to you what their profession is and how they know what they know. I do know that for virtually every company it is CHEAPER to satisfy the consumer as soon as the letter before action came in, if it is a small claims issue and if the consumer's claim has legal grounds.

Precisely for that reason I would encourage every consumer who is being fobbed off "no refund until we receive the item back" to go to court. It is highly , highly unlikely that you won't receive your payment within a copuple of weeks.

Wishful thinking of people who hate the DSR law is irrelevant.