Is this legal?

Valli

If the website image isn't a true representation of the clock you were sent (unless they cite that the image is 'representative' ) then complain. You have the right to inspect/reject goods under Distance Selling Regs anyway, though I *think* you're now outside the timescale for this.

Online (Distance) purchases are protected under DSRs anyway, so the law does offer consumers protection when buying online, as you have the opportunity to receive then accept/reject the goods.

SuperHan

I'm not sure where you're looking, but from what I've seen, the pictures on Grace and Glory Homes are of a fairly high quality, and not fuzzy at all.

That said, they are the same pictures that are used on the John Lewis website, it would seem to my untrained eye.

shaun_from_Africa

Grace and Glory offer a 14 days returns policy so you should be able to use that to return your clock.

Their website doesn't make any mention of your legal rights under the DSR's, so unless you the invoice/receipt that you received with the clock state these rights, then you can return the clock and receive a full refund and there is no requirement for you to supply the original packaging.

ochiba

Valli wrote: »

If the website image isn't a true representation of the clock you were sent (unless they cite that the image is 'representative' ) then complain. You have the right to inspect/reject goods under Distance Selling Regs anyway, though I *think* you're now outside the timescale for this.

Online (Distance) purchases are protected under DSRs anyway, so the law does offer consumers protection when buying online, as you have the opportunity to receive then accept/reject the goods.

Thanks for your post. As a matter of interest - I hope - as a MSE forum newbie I've been looking at some of the other postees consumer queries and noticed that DSR is freely quoted but have found few mentions of consumer rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that states (quote from OFT leaflet "Sale of Goods Act Explained", OFT leaflet no. OFT1267, edition 12/11)

"Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty (do not match the description, are not of satisfactory quality, or are not fit for purpose) and receive a full refund if they have not yet accepted the goods.

Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should take place within a reasonable time.

For items sold in a shop, it is important for retailers to know that inspecting them in a shop is often not considered a reasonable opportunity. This is due to the restrictions of packaging and in-store display in allowing a customer to identify a problem or a fault.

For items being delivered, it is important for retailers to know that signing a delivery note is not acceptance as it does not allow the customer a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods and identify any problems or faults.

The law does not give a time limit for acceptance.

When trying to decide if a customer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect their goods, consider what an impartial person in a court would think reasonable for that product in the circumstances."

NB this leaflet is produced by the OFT for use by retailers and their staff.

So, according to this consumer legislation, there is no actual time limit for acceptance of goods. However, I did inform Grace&Glory Homes of my non-acceptance of the item on Monday 15th July, (the item was delivered on Friday 12th July).

This may also be of interest to postees, the leaflet also states -

"The law says that a customer can approach you with a claim about an item they purchased from you for up to six years from the date of sale (five years after discovery of the problem in Scotland).

This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six years from the date of purchase! It is the time limit for the customer to make a claim about an item. During this period, you are legally required to deal with a customer who claims that their item does not conform to contract (is faulty) and you must decide what would be the reasonable amount of time to expect the goods to last. A customer cannot hold you responsible for fair wear and tear.

The six year period is not the same as a guarantee, but it does mean that even where the guarantee or warranty supplied with the product has ended, your customer may still have legal rights."

Valli

If it's this leaflet I have linked to it for other posters before; and it is bookmarked on my PC for that very purpose.
Most posters offering advice refer to DSRs when appropriate, possibly because consumers have the right to reject goods under DSRs even if there is no fault with the goods. This isn't an automatic right under SoGA.

(Blue text is a link BTW)

ochiba

SuperHan wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're looking, but from what I've seen, the pictures on Grace and Glory Homes are of a fairly high quality, and not fuzzy at all.

That said, they are the same pictures that are used on the John Lewis website, it would seem to my untrained eye.

I value your opinion on the website(s) pictures because I am sight-impaired so I have been loath to trust my own judgement.

PS I think the pic of the green Thomas Kent Cotswold clock is not as clearly defined as say the grey Cotswold clock.

wealdroam

So Ochiba, it is now becoming clear that you do not want the clock supplied by Grace&Glory Homes.

As it was delivered to you on 12 July, you are still within the seven working days allowed to cancel your order.

Your right to cancel is unconditional.
You do not have to go through all this nonsense about 'it doesn't match the John Lewis clock'.
If you don't want their clock, just tell them that.
You have until 23 July to do that.

On page 17 of the OFT's Guide to the DSRs we are told:

What cancellation rights do consumers have?
3.23 Where the DSRs give consumers the right to cancel an order, this right is unconditional and begins from the moment the contract is concluded. Unlike when buying from a shop, the first time that a consumer will typically have an opportunity to examine goods purchased by distance means is when they receive them. The DSRs give consumers who buy by distance means more rights than consumers who shop in person. When a distance consumer cancels a contract to which the cancellation provisions apply they are entitled to a refund of any money they have paid in relation to the contract even if the goods are not defective in any way.

On page 20 of that same OFT document we can see:

What must my consumers do if they want to cancel?
3.26 They must tell you in writing, or in another durable medium, if they want to cancel. This includes letter, fax or email. A phone call is not enough unless you say in your terms and conditions that you will accept cancellations by phone.

I do hope that might save you the trouble of "preparing some paperwork for my Sale of Goods Act 1979 claim ".

ochiba

Wealdroam

The reason for all this rigmarole is not that I "just don't want the Grace&Glory Homes clock".

It is because under SoGA if the goods don't match the description or are not of satisfactory quality, ie they are faulty, then the retailer must refund the customer in full and bear the cost of collection and return of the goods.

Grace&Glory Homes are denying that there is anything wrong with the clock, they have stated that it is as described on their website, that it's quality and finish is the usual high standard of Thomas Kent clocks, and that I must bear the cost of returning the goods to them. They are using DSR, ie that I am cancelling the contract simply because I have changed my mind about purchasing the clock, and therefore I am responsible for bearing the cost for returning the clock to them.

I have provided Grace&Glory Homes with photos showing the clock's defects and imperfections. I have explained that I am rejecting the Grace&Glory clock under SogA because it is faulty, and have told them that their clock is ready for collection. Grace&Glory Homes have not responded to my email (3 days now). (They usually respond to my emails within the hour.)

I contacted my credit card company yesterday and explained everything that had happened to that date. They have concerns about the clock's authenticity and they have agreed to initiate a charge dispute claim with the retailer. The credit card company want me to get the clock independently authenticated but that would incur a cost that would not be refunded by the retailer or by the credit card company. So before proceeding with this claim I wanted to consider which would be the strongest case.

Now that I have - today - compared the Grace&Glory Homes website image side by side to photo I took of the clock they sent me I can see that there are differences between them, so it will definitely be SoGA as the goods don't match the description.

I have tried contacting the credit card dispute team to let them know this but they don't work at the weekend so I'm going to update them on Monday.

PS Sorry couldn't quote your post because I'm a newbie and your post contains a link.

wealdroam

Ok, I overlooked the point that you don't want to pay for the cost of returning the clock. Sorry.

Is it right that you don't want to return the clock under DSRs because you believe that under DSRs it is your responsibility to cover the cost of returning the thing?

Have you an email from GGH, or perhaps documentation supplied with the clock, that points out that you must cover return postage cost?
I can't find anything on their website that might imply or state that you pay the return costs, but even if it did that would not be enforcible.

Back to that document I linked to earlier.
On page 27 you will see that they must provide that information in a durable means, and a website is not considered a durable means.

It says:

Who pays for returning the goods if the consumer cancels an order?
3.55 If you want the consumer to return the goods and to pay for that return, you must make it clear in the contract and as part of the required written information – see paragraph 3.10. If the consumer then fails to return the goods, or sends them at your expense, you can charge them the direct cost to you of the return, even if you have already refunded the consumer’s money. You are not allowed to make any further charges, such as a restocking charge or an administration charge.

3.56 If you did not include these details in the required written information then you cannot charge anything. See paragraph 3.10.

So it all boils down to whether or not you have durable documentation stating you must pay for returning the thing.

Of course they must pay for the return if the goods do not conform to contract*, but I feel you may struggle to convince them, or a judge, that the goods are faulty.


*that too is also part of the DSRs, again from page 27 of that OFT doc:

3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances.

ochiba

wealdroam wrote: »

Ok, I overlooked the point that you don't want to pay for the cost of returning the clock. Sorry.

Is it right that you don't want to return the clock under DSRs because you believe that under DSRs it is your responsibility to cover the cost of returning the thing?

No, it's because SoGA is applicable in this case. I'm not cancelling my contract with Grace&Glory Homes (DSR). I am rejecting, ie not accepting, the goods G&GH have sent to me because the goods are faulty and because the goods are not as described. G&GH are responsible for collection of goods because of my consumer rights under SOGA.

wealdroam wrote:

Have you an email from GGH, or perhaps documentation supplied with the clock, that points out that you must cover return postage cost?

Yes. In response to my email stating that I was rejecting, ie not accepting, the goods under SoGA, etc, G&GH sent an email stating that they would allow me to return the goods to them for refund but that I must bear the cost of returning the goods.

wealdroam wrote:

I can't find anything on their website that might imply or state that you pay the return costs, but even if it did that would not be enforcible.

Back to that document I linked to earlier.
On page 27 you will see that they must provide that information in a durable means, and a website is not considered a durable means.

It says:


So it all boils down to whether or not you have durable documentation stating you must pay for returning the thing.

Of course they must pay for the return if the goods do not conform to contract*, but I feel you may struggle to convince them, or a judge, that the goods are faulty.


*that too is also part of the DSRs, again from page 27 of that OFT doc: