Heavy bulky goods faulty - no need to return

Dogger69

Agricolae wrote: »

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




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...

Hate to be a pedant, but the returns policy is for website sales

Agricolae

Dogger69 wrote: »

Hate to be a pedant, but the returns policy is for website sales

Oops - you're right!

I'll just have to assume the policies are similar. In any case it shouldn't detract from the discussion of legal rights.

dalesrider

malchish wrote: »

I see that some posters who managed to acquire thousands of posts since august last year (I wonder why? job? Most people are far too busy with their real life to post here all the time...) are working hard to discredit the genuine info I provided.

I'm not sure if that is aimed at me.. .But as I joined in Aug and have now posted over 1K. :rotfl:

I take great offence in the comment....:mad:

I work FULL TIME in the banking sector. So most of my posts are on matters of helping people get THEIR money back....

So not only do I spend ALL my working hours helping people. I also spend a lot of my FREE time doing exactly the same

dalesrider

malchish wrote: »

If they refuse - you can involve your credit card and get your money back regardless.

Opps....

Visa/Mastercard requires you to return the goods to the retailer. Which if the retailer refuses will be at your expense before a faulty goods chargeback can be actioned.
Failure to do so, give the retailer the right to reject the chargeback.

somethingcorporate

I love this thread!

People that disagree with the OP must be paid stooges or are vehemently denying customers their legal rights. Fortunately the regulars have hit back by suggesting he is the local village idiot, posting pictures of pandas riding go-karts and suggesting perhaps he is in fact mentally ill.

Brilliant!

malchish

My advice is exactly the same as trading standards advice.

Any aggression, name calling, etc. - this is all to try to confuse consumers who come here to get advice.
Of course, Not all very active posters are paid posters, of course. However, posters who sit here all the time watching for real consumer advice regarding a rare, not well known issue - and trying to kill/discredit it - well, are they doing it for free?
And no, I do not mean they are employed by MSE.
If they are working against interests of consumers for free?...all day?... well, poor souls.


I would actually question mental health, or rather moral standing of anyone who thinks that a woman who bought a FAULTY heavy bulky item, should pay to return this item herself, in order to get her refund.
The party at fault should bear costs. Robert Dyas at fault. They will pay.
This is what Citizen Advice advise.

Valli

It is against forum rules for members to post as a representative of a company without permission.

I personally am not impressed by your blatant insistence that those who post here frequently must be being paid to do so.

I am at a total loss as to why you started this thread at all. You have been asked for advice by an aquaintance and you have given her advice.

But, as I have already told you elsewhere (and you ignored me and asked the question again) I am NOT being paid to 'watch' this forum and 'work against the interest of consumers'.

Your stance is mean. petty and pathetic. Oh and wrong. What I do IRL is none of your business. Whether I work or not is none of your business.

IF what you say is accurate and legitimate you have no need to discredit other posters; the facts will stand for themselves - but if the only way you can 'win' the argument is by making snide and underhand comments about the rationale of other posters maybe your position isn't quite what you're attempting to represent it as.

unholyangel

Agricolae wrote: »

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.

Hi sorry, another poster being pedantic! I dont think that is relevant at all since significant inconvenience etc relates specifically to repairing or replacing, not rescission.

malchish wrote: »

My advice is exactly the same as trading standards advice.

Any aggression, name calling, etc. - this is all to try to confuse consumers who come here to get advice.
Of course, Not all very active posters are paid posters, of course. However, posters who sit here all the time watching for real consumer advice regarding a rare, not well known issue - and trying to kill/discredit it - well, are they doing it for free?
And no, I do not mean they are employed by MSE.
If they are working against interests of consumers for free?...all day?... well, poor souls.


I would actually question mental health, or rather moral standing of anyone who thinks that a woman who bought a FAULTY heavy bulky item, should pay to return this item herself, in order to get her refund.
The party at fault should bear costs. Robert Dyas at fault. They will pay.
This is what Citizen Advice advise.

I dont think anyone has said that, although you do have a statutory duty to mitigate your losses. What they have disagreed with you about is whether the consumer can insist on the retailer collecting the goods when purchased from a shop and taken home by the customer.

I do hope your friends retailer gives in before court because if it goes to court, asking for the return of the items before a refund would be seen as reasonable and you can lose your claim for costs (or worse, have them awarded against you) if you are unreasonable in your behaviour. If you have been unnecessarily awkward, it will count against you.

Agricolae

unholyangel wrote: »

Hi sorry, another poster being pedantic! I dont think that is relevant at all since significant inconvenience etc relates specifically to repairing or replacing, not rescission.



I dont think anyone has said that, although you do have a statutory duty to mitigate your losses. What they have disagreed with you about is whether the consumer can insist on the retailer collecting the goods when purchased from a shop and taken home by the customer.

I do hope your friends retailer gives in before court because if it goes to court, asking for the return of the items before a refund would be seen as reasonable and you can lose your claim for costs (or worse, have them awarded against you) if you are unreasonable in your behaviour. If you have been unnecessarily awkward, it will count against you.

I wasn't too clear on whether the OP's consumer was specifically asking for a replacement or a refund (i.e. rescission), so I thought it was best to cover all bases - I covered rescission in the next part of the post. I am aware that the question of inconvenience is only mentioned for replacement/repair.

As you've pointed out though, the relevant overriding theme is "reasonableness". If the consumer is put to a lot of inconvenience in returning the goods(though it might be hard to argue given she got the goods home fine and was assembling them) it might be reasonable to ask for reimbursement of costs (if any).

malchish

But, as I have already told you elsewhere (and you ignored me and asked the question again) I am NOT being paid to 'watch' this forum and 'work against the interest of consumers'.


So you made all those posts for free? Out of spite on consumers? So, when they are given sound advice exactly matching the trading standards advice, you are there to post - all this for free...
You are not paid to "watch" - your work probably inclides posting. Simple. All your posts that i read are either against consumers, or diminish their rights, or sooth them into not demanding what they are entitled to.
If you do it for free- wow how much poison.