Sunday Mirror consumer rights champion

George_Michael

The Sunday Mirror has a consumer query Q&A page with the answers being provided by their resident "consumer rights champion", Dean Dunham.

If someone is going to have this title, is it really too much to expect that the answers they give are actually correct.

In the paper today (page 45), one of the questions asked was:

"I ordered a sports top online but didn't like the colour. The shop stated that as they couldn't resell it as new they couldn't refund me. Is this right?"

The answer given was as follows:

"in short, no, unless you have damaged or soiled the garment or removed its tags.
The distance selling regulations give you the right to return goods within 7 days of delivery.

I would have hoped that someone giving advice in a newspaper would know that any refund can't be withheld if the goods are damaged or have tags removed, and that there is no requirement to return goods within 7 days from delivery.

bod1467

It may well be the he gave a full and correct answer, but it was edited for space or other reasons by someone who didn't appreciate the implications of how the edit was made.

System

It's a tabloid. Quite a lot of what they print is not factually accurate so I am surprised you are surprised by these errors!

fluffnutter

I always see this and not in tabloids either. The Guardian, Times and Sunday Times have all, at one time or other, advised that the DSR gives people 7 days to return goods. I also read The Telegraph money column but that's always dull chuff about people's investment funds being worth a hundred grand less than they'd been told.

Seems a common mistake to make.

shaun_from_Africa

It looks like many of the newspapers suffer from the same problem.

In the Daily Express today, the writer of their "Crusader" page makes the following comment,

"According to sale of goods rules, if you buy an item seen or unseen and it is faulty, you have 4 weeks to reject it and can expect a full refund".

I wonder what "rules" state this.