Consumer Contracts Regulations

nxdmsandkaskdjaqd

I purchased a £600 home cinema system on-line, and after inspecting the product I found it to be unsuitable for my needs (poor sound quality and lack of volume).

The company is saying if I return they will only issue a partial refund (deducting up to 50%). Can they do this?

The product arrived 7.00pm Friday, emailed them 9.00am Saturday.

The company says 100% guarantee and full refund etc, etc

The following link defines there guarantee and a comment on deducting up to 50%:

http://ao.com/services/fourteen-day-returns-guarantee.aspx

Under this replacement legislation for the Distant Selling Regulation are they with their rights to do this?

j0nathon2

They can make a deduction if they can argue you've reduced the re-sale value of the product. The deduction must be equal to that loss of value, it can't be an arbitrary value.

shaun_from_Africa

nxdmsandkaskdjaqd wrote: »

Under this replacement legislation for the Distant Selling Regulation are they with their rights to do this?

Yes.
The regulations state that the retailer is allowed to make a deduction from the refund to cover any loss of value of the goods due to handling that goes beyond what would normally be allowed in a shop.
If they argue that a shop wouldn't always have every single system set up and working then unpacking and using the system goes beyond normal inspection.
The regulations allow for the retailer to make a deduction of any %, up to the full selling price and ultimately it would come down to a judge deciding if what they took was reasonable or excessive in each case.

Grumpy_Old_G*t

Problem for consumers with new regs is the suppliers now have a 'grey area' relating to returns which are simply 'unwanted' which they will almost certainly use to their advantage.
As this product is not performing satisfactorily and does not meet your expectations I would forget the CCR and reject the item under section 14 of our own Sale of Goods Act.
Quote
"For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances."

arcon5

What exactly have they proposed? Because 50% is ridiculous!!

nxdmsandkaskdjaqd

Thank you for the replies, some great info for me to argue my case.

CoolHotCold

arcon5 wrote: »

What exactly have they proposed? Because 50% is ridiculous!!

Well the OP hasn't said how much, only up to 50%

It may be 5% or 10%.

neilmcl

Grumpy_Old_G*t wrote: »

Problem for consumers with new regs is the suppliers now have a 'grey area' relating to returns which are simply 'unwanted' which they will almost certainly use to their advantage.
As this product is not performing satisfactorily and does not meet your expectations I would forget the CCR and reject the item under section 14 of our own Sale of Goods Act.
Quote
"For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances."

Something not meeting ones expectations isn't enough to suggest the item does not conform to contract and wouldn't necessarily qualify for rejection under the SOGA.

neilmcl

I think AO are playing a tad fast & loose with the spirit of the regulations.

The CCRs quite clearly state you're entitled to handle goods in a way "to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods". You can't reasonably establish the characteristic and functioning of an item such as a home cinema system without switching it on and testing it, and the fact that they themselves may not have the ability to demo this particular model doesn't mean that the OP wouldn't have the ability to reasonably expect to do so in a bricks and mortar shop.

Personally, for this item I'd be expecting nothing less than a 100% refund. Maybe if it was a washing machine I'd purchased from ao.com then that would be different and would happily take a reasonable deduction.

System

neilmcl wrote: »

I think AO are playing a tad fast & loose with the spirit of the regulations.

The CCRs quite clearly state you're entitled to handle goods in a way "to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods". You can't reasonably establish the characteristic and functioning of an item such as a home cinema system without switching it on and testing it, and the fact that they themselves may not have the ability to demo this particular model doesn't mean that the OP wouldn't have the ability to reasonably expect to do so in a bricks and mortar shop.

Personally, for this item I'd be expecting nothing less than a 100% refund. Maybe if it was a washing machine I'd purchased from ao.com then that would be different and would happily take a reasonable deduction.

Selective quoting doesn't help...

(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.

(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.

Emphasis mine.

bod1467

And the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop is to test the sound quality of a home cinema system - which is a core function of the product.

Selective understanding doesn't help ....