Distance Selling: Consumer does not have to post back

giantmutantbroccoli

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained

"Return of goods ordered online, by telephone or by mail order

The retailer's terms and conditions should say who pays for returning goods. If they don't, then the retailer has to pay, not the customer.

Retailers may also set out the way they want goods to be returned, but this cannot be unreasonably expensive or difficult.

In the case of faulty goods being returned because they are not fit for purpose do not match their description or are not of a satisfactory quality , the customer is entitled to claim the cost of postage from you or to request that you arrange collection of the item."

So basically, if you buy something online, read the retailers terms and conditions carefully. If you return something because it has a fault, you can expect the retailer to either pay for the item's collection by a courier company, or for them to collect it themselves.
If you're returning something because you changed your mind, the retailer's terms and conditions will say who has to pay for the postage (usually the customer). If the terms and conditions don't say anything about who pays for the postage, the retailer will have to foot the bill.

I hope that's of use to somebody. I don't really get what the OP is about, this information isn't a secret or even that complicated.

malchish

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained

"Return of goods ordered online, by telephone or by mail order

The retailer's terms and conditions should say who pays for returning goods. If they don't, then the retailer has to pay, not the customer.

Retailers may also set out the way they want goods to be returned, but this cannot be unreasonably expensive or difficult.

In the case of faulty goods being returned because they are not fit for purpose do not match their description or are not of a satisfactory quality , the customer is entitled to claim the cost of postage from you or to request that you arrange collection of the item."

So basically, if you buy something online, read the retailers terms and conditions carefully. If you return something because it has a fault, you can expect the retailer to either pay for the item's collection by a courier company, or for them to collect it themselves.
If you're returning something because you changed your mind, the retailer's terms and conditions will say who has to pay for the postage (usually the customer). If the terms and conditions don't say anything about who pays for the postage, the retailer will have to foot the bill.

I hope that's of use to somebody. I don't really get what the OP is about, this information isn't a secret or even that complicated.

Unbelievable! Were you attentive at all? And with this level of attention you hope to object the proper information? This quote has NOTHING to do with DSR and with the main message of this thread. The tactic of denying that 2+2=4 by saying that "6-3 is not 4" works only in an infact school.
Your quote is irrelevant - it is NOT about DSR. No tems and conditions would override the consumer rights. No terms and conditions will be enforceable if they give the consumer less rights than given by DSR.

To another poster: Persistently Asking for a personal information on a public forum and denying the credibility of the posts unless the OP discloses to you (the anonimous poster who seems to very much dislike DSR rights) what exactly their professional or personal experience is, is unrealistic, if not to say childish. None of your business. We are all consumers. I am a consumer, who else I am - irrelevant, nobody tells such info on here, unless they post in the scope of business.
I quoted the existing law, written black on white. Very few people are aware of this article in this law. It is evident from the post I am quoting above - the poster obviously confuses DSR with SOGA or returns under contract. People like this poster do not yet understand the difference - for such not-understanding folk I posted it on the internet. No scare tactics work against bare facts, whatever you label me.
My posts are for those people who want to know about their rights,not for the ones who hope to oppose them.
There is no grounds whatsoever to think that in reality DSR will not be followed if requested. They are already followed by all reputable retailers. The rest (non-reputable, stingy, non-complying) will, when you demand and report them, and I do not feel sorry for them or their business one bit.

wealdroam

malchish wrote: »

Your quote is irrelevant...

What?

What about this bit...

So basically, if you buy something online, read the retailers terms and conditions carefully.
If you're returning something because you changed your mind, the retailer's terms and conditions will say who has to pay for the postage (usually the customer). If the terms and conditions don't say anything about who pays for the postage, the retailer will have to foot the bill.

It really is important that you do read the post before criticising it, don't you think?

Anyway, I thought your sermon was over...

malchish wrote: »

I think, I gave enough information for consumers.
There is no point in playing ping-pong and replying to negative /dismissive remarks from people who seem to not respect DSr and who do not want DSR to be implemented properly in practice.

Edited to add...
So you have now edited your post... oh dear.

malchish

wealdroam wrote: »

What?

What about this bit...
It really is important that you do read the post before criticising it, don't you think?

Anyway, I thought your sermon was over...


Edited to add...
So you have now edited your post... oh dear.

Of course this quote is irrelevant, 1) because there was no issue in the thread about who pays the postage -it is the consumer normally anyway.
The thread is not about who pays postage, but who must post.
2) because the quote is not about cancelling under DSR. Nothing to do with DSR rights, just looks similar. These are parallel things, but not the same. Under DSR you must give written notificaion, etc, can return only within 7 days of receipt (or longer in some cases). What you quote is about returning something under the policy of the store, for example returning to House of Fraser online on day 24, by simply filling a return form.. You can also return on day 3, say, not under DSR, but simply under your contract with the store, if they accept returns. not every return is a DSR cancellation, even during the first days.
It is important not to mistake T&C and policies with DSR.

By the way, under SOGA a consumer also does not have to send bback what has been delivered to him. Collection is sufficient.

transient

Cor he's back again is he. Cant wait for his new insightful thread.

wealdroam

transient wrote: »

Cor he's back again is he. Cant wait for his new insightful thread.

bap98189

By refusing to send the goods back you are probably going to find yourself out of pocket.

Many companies we send out small packages by Royal Mail simply because Royal Mail are the cheapest service for sending small packages. If you post something back, it costs you only the postage. However, the only way a company can have the goods collected is to send in a courier.

The company I work for uses a well known courier to send out all our large parcels, and because of the volume we send get a far better rate than you do. However, if we get them to collect from a 3rd party address, it costs us a lot more - around 150% more in fact. That cost we would be perfectly entitled to deduct from your refund. So instead of it costing you a couple of quid to post something back, you could end up costing you £10 or more.

somethingcorporate

bap98189 wrote: »

By refusing to send the goods back you are probably going to find yourself out of pocket.

Many companies we send out small packages by Royal Mail simply because Royal Mail are the cheapest service for sending small packages. If you post something back, it costs you only the postage. However, the only way a company can have the goods collected is to send in a courier.

The company I work for uses a well known courier to send out all our large parcels, and because of the volume we send get a far better rate than you do. However, if we get them to collect from a 3rd party address, it costs us a lot more - around 150% more in fact. That cost we would be perfectly entitled to deduct from your refund. So instead of it costing you a couple of quid to post something back, you could end up costing you £10 or more.

Only if your T&Cs say so, as per giantmutantbroccoli's post.

malchish

bap98189 wrote: »

By refusing to send the goods back you are probably going to find yourself out of pocket.

Many companies we send out small packages by Royal Mail simply because Royal Mail are the cheapest service for sending small packages. If you post something back, it costs you only the postage. However, the only way a company can have the goods collected is to send in a courier.

The company I work for uses a well known courier to send out all our large parcels, and because of the volume we send get a far better rate than you do. However, if we get them to collect from a 3rd party address, it costs us a lot more - around 150% more in fact. That cost we would be perfectly entitled to deduct from your refund. So instead of it costing you a couple of quid to post something back, you could end up costing you £10 or more.

That's true, I entirely agree. It is always a choice. However, sometimes there are situations when posting back is far more inconvenient than paying for collection (even if it is £20) . Then a consumer should not be fobbed of by "then you won't have your refund".
But yes, you are right, very often it is much easier and reasonable to post back.:)