Shopping in-store, online or by phone? Your consumer rights are now boosted

neilmcl

6_6_6 wrote: »

If they have come into force, as of this moment, the following government site still purports the 'old' rules. Are we absolutely sure ?

h t t p://dshub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/dsrexplained

Yes, we are. However the DSRs are also still in place for contracts made before the 13th.

bod1467

neilmcl wrote: »

Just checked and yes the regulations came into force on 13 June 2014. The Consumer Rights Bill will encompass this and other consumer focused regulations into a single core piece of legislation.

But aren't EU directives normally enshrined in UK law via UK legislation? Therefore they're not actually active until the UK legislation is passed?

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

But aren't EU directives normally enshrined in UK law via UK legislation? Therefore they're not actually active until the UK legislation is passed?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

Citation and commencement

1. (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and come into force on 13th June 2014.

(2) These Regulations apply in relation to contracts entered into on or after that date.

I think people are getting confused. What came into force in june was the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

It has been passed. However, the consumer rights bill is more than just that. It contains a lot of other things also - and was being implemented in stages (with some already implemented at the beginning of the year).

neilmcl

bod1467 wrote: »

But aren't EU directives normally enshrined in UK law via UK legislation? Therefore they're not actually active until the UK legislation is passed?

Did you not read post #18?

The "UK legislation" in question is The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made which came into force as of the 13 June.

The Consumer Rights Bill is a separate, but encompassing, piece of legislation yet to be on the statue books.

bod1467

neilmcl wrote: »

Did you not read post #18?

Erm ... yes. After all I did quote it! Post #18 just makes a statement without any supporting evidence.

Unholyangel provided the supporting evidence, so your post above was redundant. Didn't you read post #24 before replying?

crittertog

Browntoa wrote: »

looking at all the banks its more or less the same , are they excluded as we are not actually buying from them ?

Financial services institutions are exempt. However, the FCA has stated that they will be required to comply w.r.t. phone numbers in roughly a years' time.

crittertog

6_6_6 wrote: »

Firstly the changes allow a retailer to refuse a full refund if the goods are opened i.e. a mobile phone box seal is broken. This is utter BS ! The mobile phone or any other product, that might have a box seal on it can be on display in a shop thus seal would have to be broken, or indeed a bra worn by people trying them on as they do in many shops only to be put back on the peg. This makes a mockery of the whole purpose of the DSR and can only be retailer wet dream. We lose!.

Taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf :
"14. You have a right to deduct monies from refunds where goods show signs of unreasonable use leading to diminished value. You cannot usually deduct for removal of packaging to inspect the item, but you can deduct for damage or wear and tear where the item has not just been checked but used."

bod1467

Which means that any retailer playing the system will claim an item shows "wear and tear" when they receive it back. How would a consumer prove otherwise?

I know the consumer could instigate small claims court action, and such actions are based on the "balance of probabilities". But this would still mean:

a) SCC action would need to be raised
b) Such actions can be a lottery and depend on the mood of the judge hearing the claim

So I agree in a way with 6 6 6 ... this is not good news for the consumer.

Ypaymore

Media Coverage today.

http://www.sundaypost.com/that-s-life/raw-deal/high-street-firms-clings-to-rip-off-phone-numbers-1.434482

haylau

When buying online, Customers are entitled to a full refund including outgoing postage when they cancel or just change their mind

What would happen if the consumer gave the wrong address during checkout, so it is then not possible for the post / courier to deliver the parcel

Are they still entitled for a full refund including the outgoing postage as the seller would never be able to fulfil the contract. Assuming that the incorrect address was not noticed until after delivery was attempted

Does the incorrect address void the contract and therefore entitlement to the postage refund?