cost of returning goods when cancelling order

George_Michael

bris wrote: »

What's the company, most people miss it. They can also deduct from the refund a cost if you have diminished it's value in any way. The CCR are not in any way as good as the old DSR.

Knowing the name of the company won't really help. This is because even if the return terms are stated on the website, that in itself doesn't make them legally binding. These terms must be given to the consumer in a durable format (such as e-mail) before the contract is formed. Terms on a website can easily be changed at any time.


Also your second point is incorrect.
The retailer cannot make a deduction from the refund if the consumer has "diminished its value in any way".
Legally, they can only make a deduction if the value of the goods has diminished due to the consumer going beyond opening, inspecting and testing them.

bris

George_Michael wrote: »

Knowing the name of the company won't really help. This is because even if the return terms are stated on the website, that in itself doesn't make them legally binding. These terms must be given to the consumer in a durable format (such as e-mail) before the contract is formed. Terms on a website can easily be changed at any time.


Also your second point is incorrect.
The retailer cannot make a deduction from the refund if the consumer has "diminished its value in any way".
Legally, they can only make a deduction if the value of the goods has diminished due to the consumer going beyond opening, inspecting and testing them.

Yes it will help because 9 times out of 10 the OP doesn't read the T&C's so miss the glaringly obvious, if they miss that what else have they missed so until we know the company we won't know for sure. No company details then I will assume they missed it as usual.


Second point is not incorrect because again we don't know the extent of the OP's testing and whether or not they have diminished the value so just warning them in advance that the CCR are not like the old DSR

George_Michael

bris wrote: »

Second point is not incorrect because again we don't know the extent of the OP's testing and whether or not they have diminished the value so just warning them in advance that the CCR are not like the old DSR

The reason I stated that it was incorrect was because you clearly stated that the retailer could make a deduction from the refund if the consumer had "diminished its value in any way" which is wrong.
If they had diminished the value of the goods due to simply opening, inspecting and testing them, then a deduction is not legally permitted.

bris

George_Michael wrote: »

The reason I stated that it was incorrect was because you clearly stated that the retailer could make a deduction from the refund if the consumer had "diminished its value in any way" which is wrong.
If they had diminished the value of the goods due to simply opening, inspecting and testing them, then a deduction is not legally permitted.

Your talking nonsense, I said if they diminish the value in any way yes they can make a deduction, your saying the same thing, so what the hell are you going on about.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

Your talking nonsense, I said if they diminish the value in any way yes they can make a deduction, your saying the same thing, so what the hell are you going on about.

GM (I think) is talking about the legislation stating a retailer can only make a deduction for diminished value if the handling goes beyond what is necessary to establish the characteristics, nature and functioning of the goods. Where you said they can make a deduction if value is diminished. I imagine there are some circumstances where value may be diminished by the handling required to establish nature/characteristics/functioning - and obv retailer can't make a deduction for that regardless of how the value is affected.

And of course providing they informed you of that prior to being bound by the contract. Like return postage costs, if they want to make you liable for them, then they need to inform you.

George_Michael

bris wrote: »

Your talking nonsense, I said if they diminish the value in any way yes they can make a deduction, your saying the same thing, so what the hell are you going on about.

Wow, you certainly don't take well to someone politely pointing out when you have made a factual error do you?
You are the one talking absolute nonsense and you should read up on the actual legislation before offering incorrect "advice" which could lead to people accepting a reduced refund when they don't have to.

If a consumer simply opens a package to inspect and test goods to the same degree that they could do in a shop then no deduction is allowed even the value of the goods has been lowered by what they have done.

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

(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.

arcon5

how big is the box? Mozt parcels nowadays can be sent for about a tenner and frankly it is quite reasonable you pay the return costs anyway. And unless your gonna seriously pursue this you are unlikelyto win

shaun_from_Africa

arcon5 wrote: »

and frankly it is quite reasonable you pay the return costs anyway

Why reasonable?
If the retailer has failed to comply with their legal obligations by not providing consumers with the required information then IMO, it is far from reasonable to expect those consumers to pay the return costs.
After all, isn't this the consumer rights forum?


Where do you draw the line if retailers are allowed to pick and choose what parts of the various consumer protection acts to follow and which parts to ignore?

LABMAN

bris wrote: »

Your talking nonsense, I said if they diminish the value in any way yes they can make a deduction, your saying the same thing, so what the hell are you going on about.

Calm down dear you're (not your) wrong! You as you have done previously have applied the 'bris' factor interpretation.