Confused about returning items - who pays return?

wealdroam

popadom wrote: »

I think it's clear what I mean....
I don't think a consumer should have to pay both the return and the orginal cost . That means the shop has gotten their goods back for free while I have essentially been charged to try the items on as I have to pay two shipping costs .

Yes, I understand what you mean, but why is that of any concern?

Have you checked your documentation?

Why won't you answer that simple question?

George_Michael

Hintza wrote: »

I wasn't going to be very sympathetic to the OP but if the OP buys two dresses size 16 which fit perfectly and two size 18 which they can't even do up, I think I'd be miffed too.

I would say that it depends on whether or not the two different sized dresses were from the same manufacturer as sizes do vary between makers.
I wear size 9 trainers if they are Nike but I occasionally get Reeboks and these have to be at least 9 1/2, sometimes a 10.

Here's a perfect example.
Asos.
Ladies size 16 gives a 41" bust.
http://www.asos.com/women/dresses-size-guide/?szgid=1

Next
Ladies size 16 gives a 39" bust.
http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31027

LilElvis

popadom wrote: »

I think it's clear what I mean....
I don't think a consumer should have to pay both the return and the orginal cost . That means the shop has gotten their goods back for free while I have essentially been charged to try the items on as I have to pay two shipping costs .

Yes, we all get what "you mean". What others have pointed out is what the law says.

More pertinently you have failed to answer Wealdroam's question twice. As this would be your route to receiving a postage refund to which you otherwise would not be entitled I suggest you re-read his posts, look at your documentation and then respond on here.

popadom

wealdroam wrote: »

Yes, I understand what you mean, but why is that of any concern?

Have you checked your documentation?

Why won't you answer that simple question?

It may not be a concern to you, but as a consumer I think its ridiculous. It's something that has annoyed me and I don't see why you are bothered by it..
Yes I have checked . Nothing on any paper I was sent. I didn't reply as I was checking online so I could answer you correctly. They do accept returns but I've had to email them as I intone to send half the order back.

wealdroam

popadom wrote: »

It may not be a concern to you, but as a consumer I think its ridiculous. It's something that has annoyed me and I don't see why you are bothered by it..

This is a Consumer Rights forum.
If you want to discuss what's fair and what isn't fair then this isn't the right place.

If you want to change the law then can I suggest you start by contacting your MP.

popadom wrote: »

Yes I have checked . Nothing on any paper I was sent. I didn't reply as I was checking online so I could answer you correctly. They do accept returns but I've had to email them as I intone to send half the order back.

That's good news because that means that they must cover the cost of returning the unwanted items.

Others have already given you ideas on how you might achieve this.

popadom

wealdroam wrote: »

This is a Consumer Rights forum.
If you want to discuss what's fair and what isn't fair then this isn't the right place.

If you want to change the law then can I suggest you start by contacting your MP.



That's good news because that means that they must cover the cost of returning the unwanted items.

Others have already given you ideas on how you might achieve this.

I have just said I don't think it's fair. I don't think there is a law Saying that here. If you haven't got anything to add ( apart from comment on me) why say anything? It's just wasting everyone's time.

wealdroam

popadom wrote: »

I have just said I don't think it's fair. I don't think there is a law Saying that here. If you haven't got anything to add ( apart from comment on me) why say anything? It's just wasting everyone's time.

Glad to have helped.

shaun_from_Africa

popadom wrote: »

I think it's clear what I mean....
I don't think a consumer should have to pay both the return and the orginal cost . That means the shop has gotten their goods back for free while I have essentially been charged to try the items on as I have to pay two shipping costs .

Which all sounds perfectly fair to me.
Why do you think that a retailer should lose out financially simply so that you can try on clothing in your home?
If you tried on the same clothing in a high street store you would have to pay to get there and pay again to get back home, or do you think that the retailer should cover one leg of your travelling expenses?

popadom

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Which all sounds perfectly fair to me.
Why do you think that a retailer should lose out financially simply so that you can try on clothing in your home?
If you tried on the same clothing in a high street store you would have to pay to get there and pay again to get back home, or do you think that the retailer should cover one leg of your travelling expenses?

So I should pay for the privilege of trying clothes on? if it was a brick and mortar store I could on the clothes and only buy what I like/ fits. Both parties should have some responsibility, not just one .

LilElvis

popadom wrote: »

So I should pay for the privilege of trying clothes on? if it was a brick and mortar store I could on the clothes and only buy what I like/ fits. Both parties should have some responsibility, not just one .

No, what you should do is understand the laws regarding online purchases and returns. If you don't want to pay postal charges then pick retailers who offer free delivery and returns, free collect and return to store or just purchase from a bricks and mortar store.

BTW - being rude to Wealdroam is pretty dumb on your part as he has actually told you that, in this case, the company is obliged to pay the return costs. You have just been too blinkered to notice it.