Amazon UK supporting charge for a restocking fee

cardinalbiggles

unholyangel wrote: »

Seems to go against what the rome convention says.

Source?

Amazon.co.uk is merely a trading name. Amazon isnt even VAT registered in the UK. I admit its a loophole, but a legal one. You contract with Amazon EU SARL who in turn have a contract with warehouses in the UK to provide services for them as an EU company.

THey have to abide by UK employment law (for example) but thats different from the choice of governing law in contracts of sale.

ETA: Just thought, I think in the EU they need to allow action be to brought in the customers country of residence, is that perhaps what you're thinking of? If so, that relates to jurisdiction only, not governing law.

Well law states that you cannot impose the law of another country on a consumer, so I would have assumed that applies here, unless I have my wires crossed.

For example an English company cannot say English law applies to a Scottish consumer. I realise this is countries within the UK (for the time being :-))

marko2002

Personally, I'd say you got off lightly, the person/company who sold you the router could have simply said "tough luck" because as far as I am aware they would not have been under any obligation whatsoever to exchange your item unless it was defective. The fact is, you made the error at ordering, not them, they supplied you with exactly what you asked for. I would put the "re-stocking" fee down as an experience because you were happy enough to pay it before you managed to find a pointless bit of information on the net which will only end in tears if you even consider taking it to court or anywhere else. Suck it up and learn from it

molerat

marko2002 wrote: »

Personally, I'd say you got off lightly, the person/company who sold you the router could have simply said "tough luck" because as far as I am aware they would not have been under any obligation whatsoever to exchange your item unless it was defective. The fact is, you made the error at ordering, not them, they supplied you with exactly what you asked for. I would put the "re-stocking" fee down as an experience because you were happy enough to pay it before you managed to find a pointless bit of information on the net which will only end in tears if you even consider taking it to court or anywhere else. Suck it up and learn from it

Luckily the law thinks differently though and hopefully protects consumers from cowboy companies, who like yourself, do not understand consumer rights under The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000

marko2002

molerat wrote: »

Luckily the law thinks differently though and hopefully protects consumers from cowboy companies, who like yourself, do not understand consumer rights under The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000

Suck it up or take it to court, simples !!!

shaun_from_Africa

marko2002 wrote: »

Suck it up or take it to court, simples !!!

Provided that a return for the goods was in line with the requirements of the DSR's, it would be a very foolish seller who allowed a dispute to reach court.
The DSR's are a statutory right and the right of return cannot be excluded by something stated in the sellers T&C's.

marko2002 wrote: »

Personally, I'd say you got off lightly, the person/company who sold you the router could have simply said "tough luck" because as far as I am aware they would not have been under any obligation whatsoever to exchange your item unless it was defective. The fact is, you made the error at ordering, not them, they supplied you with exactly what you asked for. I would put the "re-stocking" fee down as an experience because you were happy enough to pay it before you managed to find a pointless bit of information on the net which will only end in tears if you even consider taking it to court or anywhere else. Suck it up and learn from it

The above is totally incorrect and shows that you have no idea of what the Distance selling regulations are or how they apply to distance related consumer sales in the UK.
Simples!!!

marko2002

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The above is totally incorrect and shows that you have no idea of what the Distance selling regulations are or how they apply to distance related consumer sales in the UK.
Simples!!!

Nope, again you are all posting without engaging your brain. I said "as far as I was aware', i never said i was right. The pompus and condescending nature of the replies made sure I wasn't about to give anyone credit for the condescending manner in which I was corrected. So as I said, the OP has two choices, take it to court or forget about it and learn, and I would put money on the latter being the most likely course of action.

As I say, suck it up or take it to court ... SIMPLES !!!!! lol

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

marko2002 wrote: »

Nope, again you are all posting without engaging your brain. I said "as far as I was aware', i never said i was right. The pompus and condescending nature of the replies made sure I wasn't about to give anyone credit for the condescending manner in which I was corrected. So as I said, the OP has two choices, take it to court or forget about it and learn, and I would put money on the latter being the most likely course of action.

As I say, suck it up or take it to court ... SIMPLES !!!!! lol

This is a consumer rights board, what is the point in posting if you don't know anything about consumer rights?

And you are complaining about others being pompus (sic) and condescending whilst acting like a total pillock, really?

Once again the OP has the option of complaining to Amazon.

d123

marko2002 wrote: »

Nope, again you are all posting without engaging your brain.

It would appear to have been you posting without a brain.

Why post as you have and then admit you are ignorant of the actual facts and laws? It's pretty pathetic to post as if you are some sort of oracle while all you were doing was a thumb suck...

marko2002

Why are you two taking up this thread to have the last say? I posted a genuine response which I've already said was "as far as I was aware" and you could have easily corrected me in a much more diplomatic manner but you chose a condescending and arrogant tone instead. I may have been wrong, but I was merely stating my understanding in the hope it helped the OP come to a decision. Must be great up there on your pedestals eh?. Stop hijacking peoples threads for your own personal gratification in future

visidigi

marko2002 wrote: »

Stop hijacking peoples threads for your own personal gratification in future

Just stop.

You're ruining someone else's thread (which was looking for a consumer RIGHT, not opinion).