Currys.co.uk not abiding by Distance Selling Regulations

shaun_from_Africa

londonTiger wrote: »

Couple of significant differences between 1997.

Computers back then were beige boxes packed in a brown box - nobody gave a damn about the cosmetic differences.

So computers back in 1997 were beige boxes, but in your earlier post you clearly stated that the regulations were written before computers had even been invented.

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

As you can't even be consistant with your arguments, how can your opinions be taken seriously?

londonTiger wrote: »

The spirit of the DSR is to allow a customer a no quibble easy and effective way to return unwanted products in order to prevent sellers from ripping people off by advertising a product in a way which makes it substantially better quality than what you get.

The spirit and the whole idea behind the DSR's is to give distance customers the same opportunities to examine goods as people who buy in shops.
As Currys allow customers in high street stores to play with Ipads and other electronic goods then they are allowed to do the same with goods bought at a distance.

frugal_mike

londonTiger wrote: »

Thant's because all these people sit on the consumer side of the fence and dont run a business.

I have nothing against DSR, just don't open the package and destroy it's value. It is now a second hand/refurbished product. It is not in its original condition, case closed

That's simply not true. People here tell consumers what their rights are, even when that means we tell them the business is right and they are wrong. We clearly can't win though. When we say the business is right we're scheming shareholders. When we say tge consumer is right we're anti-capitalist-business-hates.

If you don't like the law then lobby against it. That's what a democracy is for.

As for your argument about 'the spirit of the law', when we get people in here saying they bought in store but the store was out of stock so ordered it in to be delivered to the consumer would you then jump up and say they should have a right of cancellation?

The spirit of the law clearly applies because the consumer couldn't view the product and it was ordered as if at a distance by the consumer.

You feel free to tell them that they should be able to cancel, but I'll continue to tell them what their rights actually are.

ThumbRemote

londonTiger wrote: »

breaking the seal significantly changes the product in a way which the DSR guidelines set in 1997 could not have imagined.

In which case the solution is simple - retailers shouldn't sell those products online.

The law existed before iPads. If obeying the law is causing you problems, you change the way you do business, you don't break the law.

eddddy

Having worked with some ecommerce companies, I think Currys t&cs are intended to protect them from consumers abusing DSR as follows:

"I am going on a long train journey, so I'll order an iPad; download a couple of films; watch them on the journey; and then return the iPad under DSR"

or

"I'll order a big screen TV to watch the cup final with my mates, and then return it under DSR"

It's also a very well known phenomenon in women's fashion. People order an expensive evening dress for a big event; wear it for the big night; and then return it under DSR.

With the companies I've dealt with, when a dispute like this occurs, they ultimately refund but blacklist the customer, and refuse future orders. (But I don't know if Currys work this way.)

unholyangel

londonTiger wrote: »

Couple of significant differences between 1997.

Computers back then were beige boxes packed in a brown box - nobody gave a damn about the cosmetic differences. Things are different, people expect iPads to be in mint sealed boxes - currys cannot resell this on to another customer as a brand new item. (In 1997 ocworld could resell a returned beige pc in it's brown box as a new product).

Another point: guideline mentions "software in it's original sealed package". OP is taking that to mean surely they mean software as in a CD-ROm. Well hello, it's 2014 and the vast majority of software is not sold in CD roms it's downloads. So do I have free reign to get a refund on all downloadable software? after all it's "distance selling" when I buy it from the net.

Just pointing how old, out of date these guidelines are. Feel free to test this in court if you wish.

Software is exempt from the right to cancel but only if unsealed by the consumer. However that's irrelevant here as OPs contract is for hardware.

As for downloads, those constitute services so the cancellation period for services apply. That is to say, providing you are informed of your rights....you lose the right to cancel once the service has begun.

Also OFT specifically state:

Consumers have the right to cancel even if they fail to take reasonable care of the goods; however the DSRs do give suppliers a right of action against consumers for breach of the statutory duty to take reasonable care.

You may not agree with a law, but that doesn't mean you're not breaking the law if you don't comply with it. New legislation is clarifying the above point - that they cannot refuse a cancellation even if the consumer fails to take reasonable care.

notken

We can talk about immoral uses of the DSRs if you like, but people abusing the DSRs are a separate problem to those that are using it as intended.

As far as I'm concerned I used the DSRs entirely as intended. I tried something out I'd not used before, and I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the product. The only reason I ordered it was because of the protection offered by the DSRs. If I had been satisfied with the product, Currys would have gained a sale specifically because of the protection offered me by the DSRs.

Currys are very welcome to blacklist me. I've blacklisted them! I would have thought it would be better to save that for serial abusers, though. If Currys had just behaved better then I would have considered buying from them in the future. A retail store cocking up mail order is just asking to be left behind, though.

Incidentally, I'm a business owner too. I bend over backwards to help any customer with a problem, or who isn't satisfied.

notken

Just got the call-back from Citizens Advice Bureau. After a 10 minute chat with them, they agreed with me completely that this is covered by the DSRs, and that Currys is in breach of them. In fact, she was so astounded by Currys responses that she double-checked with a supervisor. She checked Currys own T&Cs online and said even what was shown there was in all likelihood in breach of the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, inasmuch as Currys unfairly requests that items are returned unopened and unused.

The CAB's advice is for me to continue to request a refund through my credit card company (which I'm still awaiting the form to do), and send a recorded letter to Currys confirming that I have cancelled the purchase through the DSRs. In the meantime the CAB is passing the information on to Trading Standards.

No doubt londonTiger will insist Currys is in the right, though, and it's all some awful conspiracy by the rest of us.

bru88

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.

Kind of missing the forest for the trees. OP opened the package, USED the iPad and now is having second thought. Currys lose £50-£100 off of that iPad if they take it back and have to sell it on as a refurb, dont forget theres just a £20 margin here for them to begin with.

Cant find the official DSR page, but this which.co.uk article should be sound.

could be argued that the tablet is hardware and SOFTWARE.

DSR was intended to protect consumers from damaged goods and goods not as described. it gives consumers any reason what so ever to return the product as protection (which prevents sellers pushing their luck and going backwards and forwards and wasting time to avoid taking goods back). It is not an excuse to try peoples product and then return it if you dont like it.

If you want to trial an iPad, borrow one, or got to an apple store and play with one for 2 hours

Lol, load of tosh yourself. You obviously missed the discussion about provision 13d of the DSRs (yes if you google "distance selling regulations" you will find the actual statute, it isnt difficult to find).
DSR was not specifically intended to "protect consumers from damaged goods and goods not as described", that is covered by other legislation. The rationale for giving 'distance' purchases special protection is that the consumer does not have the benefit of meeting face-to-face with the supplier and inspecting the goods or services offered for sale.
The LAW does not place any obligation on the consumer to "borrow one, or got to an apple store and play with one for 2 hours" prior to deciding to purchase. This is complete nonsense on your part. And ignores that fact that in many cases there is no opportunity to "inspect one as you would in a store" before purchasing. That's why the DSRs exist!

bru88

notken wrote: »

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.

I no longer have the piece of paper that they gave to me with my laptop, but their website says

"In accordance with distance selling regulations, unwanted products bought online can be returned open within 7 working days from the day after delivery. However, they must include all original packaging, be in as new condition and not used."

It doesnt state here that the packaging must be unopened. Indeed they did eventually accept the laptop back and fully refunded even though everything had been opened.

No one is forcing Currys to operate an online store. .

Exactly. If they cant make it profitable operating an online business within the law, then leave it those who can. But that is accepting that their interpretation of the law is wrong (regarding 13d) which I've already said that I am not willing to do myself until I see a proper enforcement authority state that their policy is illegal (eg such as a county court judgment or trading standards).

bru88

notken wrote: »

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

Thats because there is nowhere in the DSRs where it states the item must be unused... except 13d where breaking the seal on software clearly is analogous to "use".


Incidentally, neither does it specifically state anywhere that the product must be returned "as new". It states that reasonable care must be taken of the product by the consumer.