Do we need to pay return cost for items advertised badly?

wealdroam

ThumbRemote wrote: »

wealdroam wrote: »

It might be worth noting that The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 were revoked upon the implementation of The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Are you quite sure about that?

I understood they were strengthened by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations in 2014, but left unaffected by the Consumer Rights Act.

Part 2 of The Consumer Rights Act, together with Schedule 2, appears to include most, if not all, of the requirements of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

A short extract from a Which article:

In general, companies are free to use whatever contractual terms and conditions they consider to be reasonable. But these terms and conditions cannot be unfair.

If you entered into the contract after 1 October 2015 then it will be governed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

If you entered into the contract before 01 October 2015 then it will be governed by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs).

Both of these regulations state that you’re not bound by a standard term in a contract with a seller or supplier if that term is judged to be unfair.

ThumbRemote

hollydays wrote: »

Yes, belt fit refers to how the seat is attached to the car.
The op suggested he wasn't aware the seat needed to be held in by a seatbelt. There's no other way his seat could be attached in the car any other way .

No, the OP is complaining about how the child is fitted into the seat. Hence the reference to 5-point harness.

Irrespective of the weight of the child, the seat is held in with a seatbelt. For a smaller child the seatbelt goes behind the child and they use the harness, for a larger child the seatbelt goes in front of the child.

goldfishimon wrote: »

We recently bought 3 identical car seats from kiddicare as they said they go up to 25kg and have a 5 point harness. Just what we needed for our 18kg 2 yr old.
However once they arrived, the instructions say that we need to use a seatbelt and not a 5 point harness with a child above 18kg. The website does not state this.

ThumbRemote

wealdroam wrote: »

Part 2 of The Consumer Rights Act, together with Schedule 2, appears to include most, if not all, of the requirements of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

This only covers unfair contract terms.

In fact the CRA specifically references a change it makes to the CPUTRs (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/1) which would seem odd if it had been revoked. Similarly, the Changes to Legislation page of the CPUTRs shows the few small sections that were revoked by the CRA (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/changes/affected/uksi/2008/1277) but no mention of the whole act being revoked.

hollydays

ThumbRemote wrote: »

No, the OP is complaining about how the child is fitted into the seat. Hence the reference to 5-point harness.

Irrespective of the weight of the child, the seat is held in with a seatbelt. For a smaller child the seatbelt goes behind the child and they use the harness, for a larger child the seatbelt goes in front of the child.[/QUOTE



It doesn't matter that the op is complaining about the fact an
Older child can't be held in by the harness. It's impossible.
Do you not understand that in a collision, if an older child was held in by a harness, the harness would rip through and out of the seat and and be thrown out. Harness can't be adjusted for a baby of 5lbs up to a 6 year old
It's not a seat made from plastic. It's made from polystyrene-hence why the only way to keep the child in this seat is by a seatbelt that is restraining both the seat and the child at the same time!
There's nothing as far as you can see for the belt to thread through the back of the seat-what's it going to hang onto- its polystyrene -there's nothing in can anchor to.it must just hold the whole thing in place in the same way an adult would use a belt-it's a glorified booster seat , it's trying to look like it can last from 0 to approx 6 years but in effect it's a bog standard boaster seat type seat/ a badly designed rear facing seat for a baby.

wealdroam

ThumbRemote wrote: »

This only covers unfair contract terms.

In fact the CRA specifically references a change it makes to the CPUTRs (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/1) which would seem odd if it had been revoked. Similarly, the Changes to Legislation page of the CPUTRs shows the few small sections that were revoked by the CRA (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/changes/affected/uksi/2008/1277) but no mention of the whole act being revoked.

OK, I do concede that revoked was the wrong word.

However, The explanatory Notes to The CRA include this:

294. Part 2 consolidates the UCTA and the UTCCRs, to remove conflicting overlapping provisions...

Another, non-definitive, website says this:

In addition to the protection offered by the common law, there exists statutory protection from unfair terms in the form of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies only to businesses and does not apply to consumer contracts or consumer notices. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 repeals and replaces the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and replace the Unfair Contract Terms Act in relation to consumer contracts and notices.

Thus I believe we should be looking to The CRA when considering unfair contract terms.

ThumbRemote

wealdroam wrote: »

Thus I believe we should be looking to The CRA when considering unfair contract terms.

I wouldn't argue with this, although I originally mentioned the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, not any of the Unfair Contract Terms legislation. It may be that we're talking at cross purposes.

unholyangel

To save arguments, theres actually a section that specifically details exactly what the impact is on existing legislation here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/2/5

CPRs are unaffected. UCTA remains in force for b2b & c2c contracts. UTCCR has been replaced with CRA.

Nessun_Dorma

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You've never asked for further details from the retailer about items prior to purchase?

Definitely would not have cost anything to clarify any confusion about features simply by contacting them directly.

Why would anyone have to? We are supposed to trust the retailer.

Nessun_Dorma

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I know what I read in the ad and I know that I would not have assumed as a result. That's "freely available" in my book.

"Your book," has no weight in law.

Nessun_Dorma

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

http://www.kiddicare.com/p/Nania_Trio_POP_Black_Group_0-1-2_Car_Seat.htm

"Car Seat Fitting Type: Belted"

In the realms of car seats and their methods of fitting, "belted," refers to how the seat is fitted to the car, not how the child is fitted to the seat.