Currys.co.uk not abiding by Distance Selling Regulations

bod1467

londonTiger wrote: »

what an load of old tosh, every minion on this board is getting hot and bothered about currys not adhering to the 7 day DSR guideline.

Would these be the same minions who have actually READ this thread, and have already proved that the Which? article is incorrect?

notken

londonTiger wrote: »

OP opened the package, USED the iPad and now is having second thought.

Pretty much every complaint you had about me has been addressed already, so I guess you've not bothered to read the thread before commenting.

I had never used an iPad before. I decided to try one out. I didn't like it. I'm entitled to return it under the DSRs, which, specifically, say I'm allowed to try it at home as I would in a store. If I had tried it out in-store, I may well have decided it was too heavy, but I wouldn't have found out how horrible iTunes is to use.

The 'software' issue has also already been discussed. I have not unsealed any software. That exclusion exists to stop me copying the software. If I could even reverse engineer and unlock an iPad enough to copy the software, what use would it be to me unless I had another iPad to put it on?

Currys in its various replies to me has specifically said that it doesn't accept the return of used goods, even if I've only opened it to inspect it, which is completely against the DSRs.

No one is forcing Currys to operate an online store. If it doesn't like the law or isn't interested in operating under it, it shouldn't be trading online.

To turn your argument against you, why not allow Currys shop staff to earn well under the minimum wage? After all, think of the money it is costing Currys having to pay people over £2 an hour.

Laws exist to protect the public from huge, powerful companies. They are not optional.

notken

Oh, @londonTiger, I found the DSRs for you:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

In emailing Currys I've always attempted to draw its attention to 3.58, specifically:

The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods.

notken

neilmcl wrote: »

Agree. I'd be tempted to reply with a link to the full legislation asking them to point out exactly where this is stated just to see what their response would be.

Good plan. I've just sent this to Currys:

I wonder if you would be so kind as to quote from the Distance Selling Regulations in support of your claim that "Unfortunately, the Distance Selling Regulations do state that the product cannot be returned if it has been used"? Because I can directly quote the DSRs that do NOT support that view (the emphasis is my own):

"The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods."
(Section 3.58)

I've taken the liberty of including a link to the DSRs so that you can perhaps read it and understand the law your online store operates under:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

wealdroam

notken wrote: »

Good plan. I've just sent this to Currys:

I wonder if you would be so kind as to quote from the Distance Selling Regulations in support of your claim that "Unfortunately, the Distance Selling Regulations do state that the product cannot be returned if it has been used"? Because I can directly quote the DSRs that do NOT support that view (the emphasis is my own):

"The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods."
(Section 3.58)

I've taken the liberty of including a link to the DSRs so that you can perhaps read it and understand the law your online store operates under:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ral/oft698.pdf

Unfortunately, you haven't quoted from the DSRs.

You have quoted from the OFT's "A guide for businesses on
distance selling", which is the OFT's interpretation of the legislation.

Perhaps you would be better extracting a suitable passage from Regulation 17 directly, although I have looked and it's not easy.

notken

wealdroam wrote: »

Unfortunately, you haven't quoted from the DSRs.

You have quoted from the OFT's "A guide for businesses on
distance selling", which is the OFT's interpretation of the legislation.

You're absolutely right. My mistake. I've just gone through the law you linked to, and there's nothing specific about not using the goods (as far as I can tell, not being a lawyer!), only taking reasonable care of them. The OFT guidelines state that opening and using the goods as one would in a shop does not mean that I haven't taken reasonable care.

But I can't find anything in the law that says it must be unused. Interesting!

londonTiger

notken wrote: »

The 'software' issue has also already been discussed. I have not unsealed any software. That exclusion exists to stop me copying the software. If I could even reverse engineer and unlock an iPad enough to copy the software, what use would it be to me unless I had another iPad to put it on?

Currys in its various replies to me has specifically said that it doesn't accept the return of used goods, even if I've only opened it to inspect it, which is completely against the DSRs.

You are interpreting the guideline in a way that it favours you, currys will take the guideline in a way that it favours them. If you were to take this in a small claims court, judge would look at the spirit of the law not the letter because it's too vauge to enforce and it was drawn up long before the goods we buy today were invented like electronics whose value plummets when you take a knife to the wrapping.

They would probably argue that you had ample opportunity to test the software on their demo iPads.

notken

londonTiger wrote: »

You are interpreting the guideline in a way that it favours you ... judge would look at the spirit of the law.
...
You had ample opportunity to test the software on their demo iPads.

The spirit of the law is that I have a right to try goods at home. The spirit of the exception is to prevent copying of software. Everything I have done and I am claiming is within the spirit of the law. You suggesting that they won't accept it because it's software is twisting the spirit of the law. (And, as it happens, not anything that has ever been claimed by Currys. As repeatedly stated, they have just said they do not refund opened goods.)

I had no opportunity to test the software on their demo iPads because I had never been in a Currys store until the purchase had been concluded. This was an entirely online purchase. My purchase was with Currys.co.uk, the same as if Amazon or eBay: distance selling, giving me the right to examine the goods in my home.

shaun_from_Africa

londonTiger wrote: »

because it's too vauge to enforce and it was drawn up long before the goods we buy today were invented like electronics whose value plummets when you take a knife to the wrapping.

So do you honestly think that there were no computers or other electronic items in existence before 1997?
This is when European Directive 97/7/EC was drawn up and it was incorporated into UK law in 2000.

neilmcl

londonTiger wrote: »

You are interpreting the guideline in a way that it favours you, currys will take the guideline in a way that it favours them. If you were to take this in a small claims court, judge would look at the spirit of the law not the letter because it's too vauge to enforce and it was drawn up long before the goods we buy today were invented like electronics whose value plummets when you take a knife to the wrapping.

They would probably argue that you had ample opportunity to test the software on their demo iPads.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you, not much change from the sort of stuff you come up with on the motoring forum I see.