Buying electronics online - refund conditions when changing my mind

alexto

Dear all,

I did read around, including thenew CCR too (which replaces the DSR as of 14 June 2014) but want to ask the experts here about a particular aspect.

Suppose I buy a piece of computing equipment online, say a hard drive. I open the package, try it out, and it's not faulty but something is unsatisfactory - maybe it's noisier oe slower than expected - something that I could not have known from the online information provided by the retailer.

As I undederstand the CCR, wrt online purchases, I have 14 days to return it, and I must return it with a wear level no more than that of having tried it in a physical shop (fair enough). Then the retailer must refund me the full amount paid, except the return shipping.

Is my understanding accurate?

Are all online retailers *obliged* to refund you if you return a product because something was unsatisfactory (not necessarily faulty), and the product is returned in pristine condition as described above?

I constantly reading T&Cs of online retailers that (to me) seem to be contradicting the CCR/DSR as they demand you must not use or unseal before returning it.

Take the following extract from an exclusive online retailer (no high-street shop) for the returns of non-faulty products:

• Products must be unused with all included accessories, drivers and manuals present in order for a full refund to be made.
• If an item is shipped back to us for return and is found to be incomplete, damaged, with security seal broken or in a non resellable condition, you may be liable for a restocking fee depending on the extent of the damage and completeness of the product.

Isn't the above in violation of the CCR? Obviously you have to break the security seal to try it, and you have to try it (i.e. use it) to determine if something is unsatisfactory ...

Am I missing something?

Thanks in advance,
Alex.

p.s. Most online retailers still have not updated their T&Cs (e.g. they quote 7 days instead of 14).

frugal_mike

alexto wrote: »

As I undederstand the CCR, wrt online purchases, I have 14 days to return it, and I must return it with a wear level no more than that of having tried it in a physical shop (fair enough). Then the retailer must refund me the full amount paid, except the return shipping.

Is my understanding accurate?

Not quite, you have a minimum of 14 days to cancel the contract by durable means. If the retailer fails to provide certain required information in the required form (as stipulated in the Consumer Contracts Regulations) then the cancellation period is extended. The goods do not need to arrive back with the retailer within the cancellation period. If the consumer is posting the goods back themselves (as opposed to the retailer collecting them) then the goods must be posted within 14 days of the day cancellation was made.

alexto wrote: »

Are all online retailers *obliged* to refund you if you return a product because something was unsatisfactory (not necessarily faulty), and the product is returned in pristine condition as described above?

Yes all UK based retailers are obliged to refund in full no matter what your reason for return, with the caveat that it is not clear that the situation you described above would be considered pristine condition. Also some goods are exempt from cancellation in some or all situations.

From the CCR's:

(9)!If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

and

(12)!For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

So if you break a security seal it might be considered unreasonable handling and give the retailer the right to deduct up to the full value of the product from your refund. It would be up to a judge to decide what constitutes reasonable handling as a matter of fact on a case by case basis. Unless official guidance is published, no one will be able to give you a definitive answer on whether the situation you described is reasonable. You would definitely have the right to cancel, but the shop may have the right to deduct something from the refund.

However if the retailer fails to provide the required information in the required form (as I mentioned earlier) then they do not have the right to deduct anything from the refund in any situations, no matter what you have done with the goods.

neilmcl

Simple question OP, would you normally be able to walk into a high street computer store and be able to "try out" a computer component like a hard drive?

If, as I suspect, your answer is no then the retailer will be able to deduct an amount to cover the diminished value of the item.

bris

As above, you can't walk into Pc world, rip open a hard drive and install it to hear how noisy it is, the OLD DSR only gives you the same rights you would have in a shop. so they may very well have recourse against you.

With the new rules a level of due diligence is now essential for anything you buy online.

There is a wealth of information out there for almost everything you buy so a bit research would tell you about other owners views on noise, speed reliability etc.

alexto

Demanding that returned products are unused is, to me, against the CCR, but virtually ALL online retailers have it. I don't have a legal background or expertise, but was hoping some of you do ... isn't this bit in the CCR:

"beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods"

clear enough wrt to wear level? Isn't it necessary to open the seal of an electronic product (even hard drive) to establish the characteristics and funcitoning of the goods?

The CCR says that "beyond" means "beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop". In a high-street shop, do they have the legal right to refuse selling you an electronic product if you ask them to plug it to a power supply for you to assess its characteristics and functioning?

Alex.

LilElvis

alexto wrote: »

Demanding that returned products are unused is, to me, against the CCR, but virtually ALL online retailers have it. I don't have a legal background or expertise, but was hoping some of you do ... isn't this bit in the CCR:

"beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods"

clear enough wrt to wear level? Isn't it necessary to open the seal of an electronic product (even hard drive) to establish the characteristics and funcitoning of the goods?

The CCR says that "beyond" means "beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop". In a high-street shop, do they have the legal right to refuse selling you an electronic product if you ask them to plug it to a power supply for you to assess its characteristics and functioning?

Alex.

I believe a store has the right not to sell you an item full stop - as long as they aren't refusing due to your race/sex etc.

mije1983

alexto wrote: »

In a high-street shop, do they have the legal right to refuse selling you an electronic product if you ask them to plug it to a power supply for you to assess its characteristics and functioning?

They have the legal right to refuse to sell you anything for any reason. As long as the refusal is not because of your sex/religion/disability etc.

I'm not sure how many retailers would be happy if I walked into their shop, opened a kettle and filled it with water to see how loud it boiled!

frugal_mike

I do think that the CSRs are very badly worded. Establishing the 'nature, characteristics and functioning' of the goods does imply some kind of use by the consumer, which is then contradicted by the next term about what is allowed in a shop.

neilmcl

frugal_mike wrote: »

I do think that the CSRs are very badly worded. Establishing the 'nature, characteristics and functioning' of the goods does imply some kind of use by the consumer, which is then contradicted by the next term about what is allowed in a shop.

I dont agree, in fact it makes it a lot clearer than the old DSRs ever did. You are supposed to have the same rights you would have if purchased from a store, so if I can go into a TV shop for instance and be able to fully demo a TV of my choosing then the CSRs would allow me to do the same when bought online.

societys_child

neilmcl wrote: »

I dont agree, in fact it makes it a lot clearer than the old DSRs ever did. You are supposed to have the same rights you would have if purchased from a store, so if I can go into a TV shop for instance and be able to fully demo a TV of my choosing then the CSRs would allow me to do the same when bought online.

And the tv of your choosing would already be on display and available for demo, you cant just rip an identical one open and set it up yourself. Most sensible people know this.

frugal_mike

It's the fact that we can have such very different interpretations that is the problem in my opinion. If two people can read it and come to exactly the opposite conclusion then it isn't clear.

Couple that with the fact that the clarification on reasonableness is several paragraphs after the one its clarifying and its easy for people to miss it entirely.