Returns

Flyonthewall

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

Of course a business can't say "no refunds" but what you've quoted is not in the context of this discussion which is about disputing a buyers claim.

It doesn't mean a trader can never decline a refund otherwise any claim would be valid even if the buyer complained they couldn't fly in to space on a toy rocket!

Having a valid reason to decline a rejection is not restricting the law.

Course it is. It shows what the law does say about what happens when the buyer has a claim and the whole point is that the only thing it says about disputing it is that it happens afterwards.

Well, yes it does. The buyer might end up sending it back as a change of mind in that case, but the seller has no choice but to refund however dumb the reason. Although, that is a very general statement, it could easily be a very stupid buyer and/or a misleading description/slogan. It might be like complaining that Red Bull didn't give you wings. You'd have to be really stupid to think it would, but technically that is what the product claims.

The sellers version of a valid reason is their opinion of what's valid so by saying no refunds based on their opinion is restricting their rights to a refund.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

But I can't agree with Flys you have to accept any claim stance nor that if a retailer acted reasonably and could present a reasoned case (rightly or wrongly) that a court would take a dim view just because the retailer didn't simply hand money over no questions asked.

Well you've yet to post any evidence that proves otherwise. You can not accept it if you want but it doesn't change the law and you might find yourself with serious problems if you run a business and deny a refund, regardless of how stupid the claim.

That's not to say you can't ask questions or try and persuade them to pay postage themselves, but if they refuse you'll have issues.

If you did go to court and the buyer happens to be genuine then you've really got no excuses and you've got no idea before that point if they are or not despite what you think about them. It's a lot of hassle even if you are right, plus you'd then still have to refund them anyway based on it being a change of mind return and costs involved (e.g. petrol getting to court) would outweigh the cost of paying postage which is something that, as a business, you should be accounting for anyway.

On top of all that you also risk negative reviews and could potentially lose customers. Could be far worse if the buyer is genuine. Is it really worth all that just because you feel a buyer may just have changed their minds?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The legislation, which is here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

(anything else written merely being guidance/interpretation) states what happens "if the goods do not confirm to the contract" as a statement of fact.

Where one party disagrees with another that would be where a court comes into play.

RFW

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

Where one party disagrees with another that would be where a court comes into play.

What's the highest postage that could be contested, £25? So I'd bet a substantial sum that no one has ever gone to court to claim back the postage.
The only time the law would get involved would be if a seller continually refused to pay return postage and Trading Standards prosecuted.
No seller would take a buyer to court for a few quid.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RFW wrote: »

What's the highest postage that could be contested, £25? So I'd bet a substantial sum that no one has ever gone to court to claim back the postage.
The only time the law would get involved would be if a seller continually refused to pay return postage and Trading Standards prosecuted.
No seller would take a buyer to court for a few quid.

To be fair it's not just the postage, if the buyer claimed faulty and the seller proved it wasn't, under the cancellation regs the seller may deduct diminished value and any enhanced postage.

Of course on a £5 item that may not be much but if you sell a brand new £600 Apple product the diminished value alone would be worth the effort.

Flyonthewall

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

The legislation, which is here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

(anything else written merely being guidance/interpretation) states what happens "if the goods do not confirm to the contract" as a statement of fact.

Where one party disagrees with another that would be where a court comes into play.

No direct link to the section(s) mentioned and quoted wrong, helpful.

Anyway, it'd be daft to go to court because you feel - not know, but feel - a buyer may be just trying to get free postage.

Whether the goods conform to the contract or not would have to be proven by the seller, which is what I've been saying previously. That statement in no way backs up your point about being able to refuse a claim for not as described.

What it does say is that the consumer has the right to reject the item (in other words, they get a refund), the right to a repair or replacement or the right to a price reduction. There is no mention of the seller being able to refuse based on their belief of a buyers claim.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

To be fair it's not just the postage, if the buyer claimed faulty and the seller proved it wasn't, under the cancellation regs the seller may deduct diminished value and any enhanced postage.

Of course on a £5 item that may not be much but if you sell a brand new £600 Apple product the diminished value alone would be worth the effort.

Any deductions would have to be deemed appropriate though. If you went to court you'd have to prove they were fair.

The diminished value even on an Apple product wouldn't necessarily be worth it. If it's still as new (but briefly used) then an iphone may drop by £100 or so depending on where you sold it and exact condition. There's a chance that if you knocked £20-50 off you'd get a buyer easily enough. A macbook may still fetch as much as a new one. You may knock it down a couple of quid to attract buyers but that would be your choice.

You'd struggle to prove that a larger reduction was appropriate. A small reduction might not be worth the effort.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Flyonthewall wrote: »

There is no mention of the seller being able to refuse based on their belief of a buyers claim.

There is also no mention of the buyer making a claim,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

Statement of fact based on the goods, not what either party says.

But of course you must be right because if you buy a sofa from DFS, a TV from Currys, a dishwasher from AO or an iPhone from Apple and take it back as faulty they'll simply smile, hand you the refund, ask if you have other costs and send you on your merry way secure in the knowledge you'll never heard of the matter again...

Flyonthewall

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

There is also no mention of the buyer making a claim,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

Statement of fact based on the goods, not what either party says.

But of course you must be right because if you buy a sofa from DFS, a TV from Currys, a dishwasher from AO or an iPhone from Apple and take it back as faulty they'll simply smile, hand you the refund, ask if you have other costs and send you on your merry way secure in the knowledge you'll never heard of the matter again...

It's the Consumer Rights Act, clue is in the name that it's about the rights of the buyer so it's based on them. If, as a buyer, you believe the goods do not conform to the contract these are your rights, this is the law, this is what you can get/can do. It's obviously not going to magically happen unless the buyer makes the claim to the seller.

Oddly enough the goods themselves aren't going to say they don't conform to the contract so it has to be based on what one of the parties say.

There is no returns process without the buyer making a claim and as they start it their claim is obviously the first thing you have to go by. You can't just jump to the end and bypass rights because you don't feel the buyer should get them, it doesn't work that way.