Heavy bulky goods faulty - no need to return

peachyprice

custardy wrote: »

I could understand you being something in a village.

Every village has one.

Valli

*wipes up coffee*

malchish

The law states that if the item is faulty, you are entitled to reject the goods and get a full refund. The law does not say that the trader entitled to make you transport the goods to them.
If they want their item back, it is their problem how to get them back.
The item only needs to be available for collection.

no insults from any trolls will change those simple facts.

Dogger69

malchish wrote: »

The law states that if the item is faulty, you are entitled to reject the goods and get a full refund. The law does not say that the trader entitled to make you transport the goods to them.
If they want their item back, it is their problem how to get them back.
The item only needs to be available for collection.

no insults from any trolls will change those simple facts.

With reference to your 'facts':

Where does 'the law' state that the item only needs to be available for collection?

You are aware that in most circumstances the law allows the seller to elect whether to refund, replace or repair, and that the refund may be partial? The right to reject only exists for a short time after purchase.

Takeaway_Addict

malchish wrote: »

Dear custardy, I would ask you to declare your interests: do you receive any remuneration for posting on here, or it is part of your work duties to post on here? I cannot imagine a genuine, unpaid poster having 25000post (about 12 posts EVERY working day) in 7 years. It is either a paid activity, or an unhealthy obsesssion. in both instances, your posts are not to be trusted.

It is very obvious that there are posters who make sure that every genuine advice given to consumers about their not very well known rights, is immediately trashed on here. I must be such an eyesore for you guys!

LOL.........what a joke (1st post of the day...I have 3 more on average!)

Hintza

malchish wrote: »

The law states that if the item is faulty, you are entitled to reject the goods and get a full refund. The law does not say that the trader entitled to make you transport the goods to them.
If they want their item back, it is their problem how to get them back.
The item only needs to be available for collection.

no insults from any trolls will change those simple facts.

So now the only two threads you have started are saying exactly the same thing. Perhaps the mods should merge them both now to give everyone a better understanding of your point of view.

custardy

Hintza wrote: »

So now the only two threads you have started are saying exactly the same thing. Perhaps the mods should merge them both now to give everyone a better understanding of your point of view.

I'm going to be honest and say I dont think I hold the required qualifications

Takeaway_Addict

malchish wrote: »

Dear Consumers, when you are told on here that you have no right to this or to that... - look who is saying this, and make your conclusions.

If the faulty item you bought from a store is too heavy, bulky to return it to the store without inconvenience, you can ask the store to collect.
If they refuse - you can involve your credit card and get your money back regardless. Or, you can sue in small claims caourt for your refund.
Do not worry, well before the hearing the store will give you the refund.
Also, you can legally record all the conversations with the store, and you are within your right to inform the public about any fobbing off tactics or lies told to you.
Do not be intimidated by the army of paid posters whose purpose is to muddle the threads or create drama.

Have you got mental health issues? Suggest its a good idea to go and get checked out if you think people get paid for posting on here and especially if they only get paid if they disagree with you!

Again you are only suggesting things that you could go and do, nothing that legally says the retailer HAS to collect bulky or heavy items (though there is an argument to compensate reasonable expenses).

The store probably would refund before it got to court but you'd have to be of your head not to just return the item before the time it got to court.

Agricolae

Let's look past the back and forth going on in this thread and consider the retailer's returns policy:

If you believe a product is faulty, you should notify our Customer Service Department (0845 873 5667 Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm (call charges may vary by network**) or via email to: customerservices@robertdyas.co.uk) and arrange for return / collection of the product as instructed. Our policy on faulty products does not affect your statutory rights. Goods should be returned to the returns address in ‘Returns Address’ below.
We aim to process any applicable refunds within 14 days of receipt of the goods at our warehouse. Please note that for security reasons we cannot refund a different card to the one you made the original purchase with.
Please also note that for security reasons we can only send out replacement items to the address used in your original order.
If the damage to a faulty item is deemed to be malicious, no refund (Product, delivery charge, nor return postage) will be made.

It appears from the above that in some cases the company will collect items which are alleged to be faulty. Obviously it isn't stated, but I imagine these are items which will require a truck to take back. Not the best returns policy I've ever seen (given the 14 day turnaround), but let's move on...

Now let's look at the Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 48B:

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.]

The relevant phrase for our OP's situation would be "significant inconvenience". What degree of inconvenience can be said to be significant would depend on the circumstances and I would argue is a question of fact. Also, it does say that costs should be borne by the seller. So, if the OP's consumer has to spend £20 in petrol or something in returning the item, then it looks as though she could claim reimbursement.

And for the sake of completeness let's look at section 48C, which deals with when a consumer wants to rescind the contract and get a full refund.

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—

(a)require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(b)rescind the contract with regard to those goods,if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2)The condition is that—

(a)by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or
(b)the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.]

As you will no doubt notice, there is no mention of how goods should be returned to the seller. However, if a contract is rescinded then the goods do have to be returned. It looks to me as though it is up to the parties in question to come to some kind of agreement as to how this is to happen. The risk, of course, is a Mexican stand-off where neither side trusts the other to act reasonably. i.e. the OP demands a refund before returning the goods, and the retailer demands the goods are returned before giving a refund.

In short, I cannot see any legal right the OP's consumer has to demand that Robert Dyas pick up the goods if she wishes to get a full refund. An argument could be made that Robert Dyas should pick the goods up for the purpose of repair or replacement, but only if the condition of "significant inconvenience" can be proven. Depending on the circumstances, if she returns the item herself, she may be able to claim reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in doing so.

Unreasonable costs would be, for example, the cost of hiring a pink Humvee limo to return the item. Although I doubt anyone would actually do this, I wouldn't put anything past this OP.

Valli

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Have you got mental health issues? Suggest its a good idea to go and get checked out if you think people get paid for posting on here and especially if they only get paid if they disagree with you!

Makes a change - I usually get accused of being in the employ of whatever company I an considered to be defending:rotfl:
I'd be honoured to be a MSE employee!