Do you know your consumer rights and how to use them?

G6JPG

Make it a criminal offence - for the management, not the indians - for small print to be deliberately weaselly: you know what I mean, where conditions are included that just-about-legally remove rights.

This to include any costs that have to be paid - for example, sellers of broadband services who include the line rental charge (which has to be paid to get broadband!) in tiny print. Any costs which have to be paid to get the good or service should be shown in typeface no smaller or less bold than the headline price.

gik

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

I don't agree with this. The Sale of Goods act covers poor quality items. 6 months to return anything would end up on increased prices across the board to cover the cost of all the stock bought back just because it was unwanted because people would take advantage of this.

bought or brought?

Money-Saving-King

gik wrote: »

bought or brought?

Which do you think?

Gazzer

Hi

I have 2 suggestions that I think need to be looked at.

1. Sites like Facebook / Twitter allow adverts from any source. From recent experience these allow companies to place misleading and bogus claims with no redress. I would suggest if an advert is placed then the site it appears on is equally liable to compensate the consumer when it is misleading or unfair. After all they have received money from the company concerned so should be obliged to validate the claims and the authenticity and accuracy.

2. Again from recent experience. As a consumer to complain to Trading Standards you have to do this via the Consumer Line which is operated by the CAB. I have great respect for the CAB but is this an effective way to handle these complaints as I have found I have more knowledge than the CAB. There should at least be some accountability within TS and some figures giving complaints received, complaints followed up etc. I would prefer some alternative to only being able to contact the CAB which would improve the service and offer better protection to consumers.

DD265

I think that it should definitely be clarified and simplified - across the board. I know the rights as I work for a mailorder retailer and the number of customers who know a little bit or are partially informed by somebody else is just a nightmare.

I don't disagree with a 30 day window within which to obtain a refund for faulty goods, but I would expect the law to be explicit that this would start on on a specific date - say in line with the DSRs. I think that it would be incredibly unfair to retailers to open up a refund window of 6 months because of the costs incurred in resolving faulty items such as return costs, goodwill gestures etc, not to mention lost sales.

If the law will stay the same in terms of the retailer being able to choose between repair, replacement, refund (ignoring the 30 day thing) then this needs to be clearer. There is something on the Which website that tells customers they can have refunds for faulty items - but it doesn't mention that they are not entitled to them in all circumstances! Websites like that which only give partial information are really making it hard for everybody.

The danger I think is striking the right balance between protecting the consumer and promoting good, efficient business practises. My concern as a retailer in an industry with typically low margins (certainly compared to the high street) is that we could well see a rise in costs relating to returns as a result. Yes it's a cost of doing business but many businesses can only cope with those costs going so high!

I do wonder whether it might be a positive thing if bricks and mortar sales and distance sales are brought into line with one another; there would be less legislation for customers to need to know then. However I would like to see a change made to the distance selling regulations which states that items must be returned in a resaleable condition - perhaps removed from packinging or in some cases assembled, but in good enough condition that they could be repackaged.

As for the questions:

Would you like to see more information on your rights at a till or at the time of purchase?

Personally I'm good because I know it. However I would question whether even if you put the information there, would people actually bother to read it? How many people agree to terms and conditions without even opening the link?

Would you like easier and quicker ways to complain so you don't need to go to court?

I think that if everybody (retailers and customers alike) were better informed about the legislation then actually it wouldn't be necessary to go to court. The only time we get threatened with court proceedings is if a few months down the line we won't issue a refund because we can replace an item. I think that if customers understood that the retailer has the right to make this decision, then you wouldn't get into a disagreement in the first instance. So simplifying the legislation can only be a good thing in this respect.

I agree with Gazzer about CAB - I know they often only get half a story, but I haven't found them to be very decisive. I guess you could argue that this is because there are so many grey areas in the law! I think that there might be more success if instead they acted in a mediation capacity - at least that way they could get a full understanding of the issue and give wholly accurate advice.

hollydays

Maat wrote: »

I'm not sure whether this could be incorporated but it's a consumer rights issue and one very dear to my heart.

At present the rules regarding labelling vegetarian and vegan products are pretty lax. Basically everyone does as they darned well please. Indeed, there is one supermarket where the packaging on some of their products says one thing while their up to date vegan list says another - which are you to believe? Other supermarkets (hello, Asda) don't even bother making the attempt. They label the vegetarian items but not which of those are also vegan. If the Co-op and Tesco can do it why can't they all?

What I would like to see is obligatory and clear labelling of all groceries, toiletries, make-up and household products. The label should state whether the item is vegan or vegetarian and, in the case of toiletries, make-up and household products, whether it meets BUAV's criteria for cruelty-free (indicated by the 'leaping bunny' logo). Maybe they could add a health warning on the meat and dairy products too in the same way they do cigarettes (just a thought!)

A health warning on meat and dairy saying what?

William_Barnes

Not sure I need more consumer rights. Why? Well I haven't complained or had a faulty product for years and years.

But what I would like are regulators that work for the consumer. I complained about a walkers crisps ad to the ASA, where a certain Mr Lineker managed to pull a crisp out of a bag with only the tips of his fingers going into the bag, well I'm sorry bags of crisps are 50% full at the best of times, there's no way he'd be able to do that with a shop bought pack, so to my mind it was misleading, the ASA don't think so.

Another regulator OFCOM is allowing companies to advertise fixed term deals where the small print allows price rises, so fixed doesn't mean fixed. All to often companies state what's beneficial for them to quote but not what's in the interests of the consumer.

A certain PPI ad states we've had 10s of thousands of customers but only quotes a satisfaction rating from a select 1100 or so. Doesn't seem right to me.

And don't get me started on DVDs etc. The consumer is being milked again. Region coding who benefits from that , the companies. Bringing out a film then 6 months later the extended version then 6 months later the special edition. All designed to part the consumer with even more money. Can;t see a consumer right bill helping out with that practice.

If these practices were knocked on the head, then we wouldn't need more rights.

transient

William_Barnes wrote: »

A certain PPI ad states we've had 10s of thousands of customers but only quotes a satisfaction rating from a select 1100 or so. Doesn't seem right to me.

A similar gripe thta gets on my nerves is adverts for all the beauty companies like L'oreal, Ulay etc etc where th eproduct they are advertising says

90% of women agree (out of 112 people) Why the odd number? because they need those to bolster the percentage up. I think it should be out of a larger sample size for a true reflection and independent at that