Distance Selling: Consumer does not have to post back

transient

malchish wrote: »

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.

you didnt quote the law merely an excerpt from it which confuses the consumer even more than not knowing at all which is what I was alluding to.

I also dont recall asking your profession? Please remind me? Also just because there has not been a court cse to my kowledge as yet but just because it is the law it does not mean companies are complying with the law does it?

Takeaway_Addict

malchish wrote: »

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

Night night.

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.[/QUOTE]

Actually morals have nothing to do with law, hence why some laws have been changed due to peoples morals deciding the original laws were incorrect.

malchish

bris wrote: »

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.

Yes then can, but in practice it would be VERY stupid of them to do so. They would have to first refund, in order to have any positive prospect at their counter claim. Their own lawyer will advise them to pay the refund and ask you to pay for the return back - which you will gladly do, wouldn't you?
They cannot apply any damages to you expect the true, reasonable cost of collection. This is because you have not breached anything. You act by DSR. It would be very stupid of them to spend the valuable time of their lawyer on filing counter-claim for £10 that a reasonable return costs a company.

malchish

If you know a single consumer who lost in court because of asking a company for collection under DSR, please quote the case reference. I know for certain that there are none, so you won't be able to! The rest of the discussion is not more but scare tactics.

As to public's low knowledge being not the fault of the companies... of course it is not. But this is irrelevant. I am trying to correct this low knowledge, because anyone who googles now "return DSR" will read the quote from the law.
Government guidance agrees with this, also. The business advice to businesses is that they have to collect the item unless the customer is willing to post the item themselves.
There is nothing to argue about. It is a fact. A fact of a real world, the law written by real lawyers who are successful enough to be in the real world by their both feet.

malchish

lucy03 wrote: »

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.

I agree! The amount of potential stress is to be taken into account. Depending on the sum involved, the item and the company, you can decied what to do.
Courts do not look favourably at frivolous claims.

But I do not understand some comments: sending back flowers? they are excluded from DSR anyway!
Magazines? Who in their right mind would sends back a magazine under DSR? The postage back would cost the same as the price!

At no point I recommend suing a company just for fun.
How heavy, bulky the item is, what is your situation, how expensive your time is, everything will be taken into account.
If you ask the company for a reasonable thing, their management at the high level will settle, offer collection, etc.
They do not need the hassle as much as you do not need it.

There unlikely to be any drama over a consumer insisting the company to collect the goods and quoting the DSR. At least, I can give you the fact that Argos complied no problem, despite their practice being different. Amazon complied... with a lightweight item - I know this for a fact, I dealt with those consumers. Not even a complaint was needed with those big companies -just a word with the knowledgeable manager.
and the cost they asked to pay for return was very reasonable, nothing to go to court over.
Any reputable company will comply!
Despite their t&c frequently being "trying". Some contracts completely ignore the DSR rights... however, when challenged - they soon back down no problem.

Why do several posters here make assumptions that retailers will fight this right of DSR? Things are not that bad and unfair in the real world! A consumer who knows their rights will get what they want without any fight!!! Simples!

transient

malchish wrote: »

If you know a single consumer who lost in court because of asking a company for collection under DSR, please quote the case reference. I know for certain that there are none, so you won't be able to! The rest of the discussion is not more but scare tactics.

As to public's low knowledge being not the fault of the companies... of course it is not. But this is irrelevant. I am trying to correct this low knowledge, because anyone who googles now "return DSR" will read the quote from the law.
Government guidance agrees with this, also. The business advice to businesses is that they have to collect the item unless the customer is willing to post the item themselves.
There is nothing to argue about. It is a fact. A fact of a real world, the law written by real lawyers who are successful enough to be in the real world by their both feet.

Do you just type what you want and not bother to read? I'll quote what I said again

transient wrote: »

Also just because there has not been a court cse to my kowledge as yet but just because it is the law it does not mean companies are complying with the law does it?

As said already your post does not assist but merely confuses as you have only quoted an excerpt of the law. As said what if they bought a newspaper or periodical online or some flowers and thought they could send it back because they think they know DSR but wanted to know if they would get their postage back would your post be helping them then?

malchish

transient wrote: »

Do you just type what you want and not bother to read? I'll quote what I said again


As said already your post does not assist but merely confuses as you have only quoted an excerpt of the law. As said what if they bought a newspaper or periodical online or some flowers and thought they could send it back because they think they know DSR but wanted to know if they would get their postage back would your post be helping them then?

This demonstrates that you either have no idea of DSR, or deliberate try to put it wrongly.
Flowers are excluded,
Magazines are excluded,
Both examples are ridiculous - only a crazy person would cancel a £10 purchase to pay a £ 6 return.

Yes, many companies do not comply, because people do not know what they should comply with. The same way as many companies do not comply with Sales of Goods act, until demanded to comply. Countless times I saw "no refunds on sale goods " sign. Every time it was perfectly possible to refund a faulty item to such stores.
It is called "the company trying it out". A company can place anything in their T&C, however unenforceable, in the hope that the consumer will get intimidated enough and will not demand what they are entitled to.

The quote I gave is comprehensive enough and does not contradict anything in the rest of the text. The government advice agrees with me, as well.

screaming:" you won't succeed, you won't succeed, the judge won't listen to you, the company will counterclaim... bla-bla-bla" won't scare anyone, and it does not change the fact that consumer can insist on collection, refund within 30 days, and no company so far went to court over this.

A consumer strong enough to ignore the intial fobbing-off bluff from a junior apprentice in the call centre will in all likelihood get all they want, well before going to court. I think I explained enough.

malchish

The majority of reputable companies have the collection system in place anyway. Any bulky item would be collected on time and refund processed quickly. Those companies would indeed like a level playing field with those business which so far take advantage of the consumer.
Those companies who do not comply will , if enough consumers ask. Spreading the knowledge in the key.
And if the real world is not perfect, shall we help to make it a fraction better? what is good about "do not even try" advice instead?

Any consumer who knows about the right to collection, may still choose to go to a post office and return. No problem.
What I cannot comprehend is, (and this is the only thing I cannot comprehend about DSR) who, except people connected with non-complying businesses, would want to defend non-compliant companies or discourage a consumer from standing for their rights?

transient

malchish wrote: »

who, except people connected with non-complying businesses, would want to defend non-compliant companies or discourage a consumer from standing for their rights?

Are you implying me or others in this thread?

Hintza

malchish wrote: »

It is morally right to act by the law.

They tried that at Nuremberg.

So if we don't like the spirit of your post we must be in cahoots with the online companies, that would be conspiracy theory then!

Many on here know I am not keen on the DSR as they stand as they are biased in many instances towards the consumer (which allows dishonesty to creep in), which of course has resulted in them being re-written the danger is the pendulum will swing too much the other way and be biased towards the online companies due to people not actually working within the "spirit" of the regulations.

I still work on the theory that most folk/companies are decent and if I play straight with them they will reciprocate.

Now if an item arrives damaged or broken then that is a different matter and I would fully expect the company to cover all costs.