Who Pays The Carriage?

paulwilko10

Hello

I have a customer who says the product is faulty.
I have no reason to not believe him and he has spoken to the manufacturer apparently although he has not got a returns number.

I have offered to collect the item at our cost.

Question is, if we get it back and it is not faulty and works perfectly including the suspected fault, am i in my rights to refund him less the carriage to collect it?

At this moment it is just his word. If it is not faulty, surely it will be a change of mind in effect?

Hope you can help

Paul

unholyangel

The consumer rights act states:

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

The explanatory notes provide:

97.Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.

So if he is rejecting for a refund, you could ask him to prove the goods are inherently faulty. If he is asking for a repair or replacement, then it will be for you to prove they are not (unless incompatible).

If the goods do conform to contract (I hope if you have a website you don't say something like "no refund unless faulty"), whether you can deduct the cost from the refund may be influenced by other matters. For example if you sold the item at a distance and did not provide the consumer with the necessary information prior to the conclusion of the contract then you would not be able to reduce the refund. If you had provided the info, then you would be able to reduce it by the direct cost only and - if goods of that type cannot be returned by normal post - you would also have to provide a cost as part of pre-contractual information.

paulwilko10

Thank you

Our website does not say "Unless Faulty" lol

We have asked him to prove it by speaking to the manufacturer which in turn would give him a returns number which has not been provided. So at this time, there is no proof other than him hitting me with consumer rights speech.

So I am collecting a so called faulty item, but if i prove it is not faulty and works as advertised, i believe i can refund less cost of collection, am I wrong?

paulwilko10

As it happens i have just had an email from him saying he has now got the reference number, so all good, but for future i would still be interested in the customers rights in this type of case

unholyangel

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Thank you

Our website does not say "Unless Faulty" lol

We have asked him to prove it by speaking to the manufacturer which in turn would give him a returns number which has not been provided. So at this time, there is no proof other than him hitting me with consumer rights speech.

So I am collecting a so called faulty item, but if i prove it is not faulty and works as advertised, i believe i can refund less cost of collection, am I wrong?

Its not a straightforward answer i'm afraid. Theoretically if he purchased on the phone/via website and you didn't comply with the requirements on providing pre-contractual information (as set out by the Consumer Contract (information, cancellation & additional charges) Regulations 2013 then you may not be able to charge him the return costs in any event.

paulwilko10

Thank you

Can you answer this then please.

Are we breaking the law by getting the customer to speak to the manufacturer to determine if there is indeed a fault and if there is get a RMA number so we can process the return?

If they do not have that proof, how do we know it is faulty and not just a bad set up by the customer?

Thanks

Paul

unholyangel

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Thank you

Can you answer this then please.

Are we breaking the law by getting the customer to speak to the manufacturer to determine if there is indeed a fault and if there is get a RMA number so we can process the return?

If they do not have that proof, how do we know it is faulty and not just a bad set up by the customer?

Thanks

Paul

In these particular circumstances, no because as above your customer seems to be exercising their short term right to reject and the six month rule (on assuming the lack of conformity to be inherent) does not apply when exercising the short term right to reject.

More generally, there should be no issue unless you're telling them that they need an RMA number and you won't do anything without it - you can't limit your liability to consumers by making their rights contingent on them complying with a formality (may make it easier for you if they comply but you can't remove their rights as a result). Basically the best approach would possibly be to direct them to manufacturer (perhaps even highlighting it can often lead to a speedier resolution) but make it clear to them if they still need help/have an issue, get back in contact with you.

As for the proof....its always up to the party alleging breach of contract to show the contract has been breached. Further to that, if exercising the short term right to reject (within 30 days of purchase) or after 6 months have passed, you can also require your customers to prove the lack of conformity is inherent in nature.

If they are within 6 months from purchase and are not exercising the short term right to reject, the law presumes the lack of conformity is inherent in nature and it is for you to prove otherwise if you don't want to provide a remedy.

paulwilko10

So sorry i never replied to this.

I have had another hitting me with the same stuff.

This paragraph from your reply is interesting
"As for the proof....its always up to the party alleging breach of contract to show the contract has been breached. Further to that, if exercising the short term right to reject (within 30 days of purchase) or after 6 months have passed, you can also require your customers to prove the lack of conformity is inherent in nature."
Where in the consumer rights does it say this so i can quote it if required.

I know it wont say exactly, but there must be something i can use in this case?

Thanks

Paul

wealdroam

paulwilko10 wrote: »

So sorry i never replied to this.

I have had another hitting me with the same stuff.

This paragraph from your reply is interesting
"As for the proof....its always up to the party alleging breach of contract to show the contract has been breached. Further to that, if exercising the short term right to reject (within 30 days of purchase) or after 6 months have passed, you can also require your customers to prove the lack of conformity is inherent in nature."
Where in the consumer rights does it say this so i can quote it if required.

I know it wont say exactly, but there must be something i can use in this case?

Thanks

Paul

Have another look at post#2. Does that not answer your question?

Here is a post I made on another thread which may help:

...when exercising the short time right to reject, the buyer must show that the goods do not conform to contract.
Note 97 in The Consumer Rights Act Explanatory Notes explains this:

97. Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.

My bolding.

But really that's just repeating the information given by Unholyangel in post#2.

paulwilko10

This whole thing does my head in. Just when i think i am getting my head around it, there is a sub section which i dont understand lol.

Okay, as I understand it.

They have in their eyes got a faulty product. It is well within 6 months.
I have the right to ask them to prove it is faulty whether that is via a manufacturer phone call or whatever means, then i have to collect and refund if that is what they want.
If they want a repair / replacement, it is ALL down to me to sort it out?

Does that sound right?

Sorry for being thick about this

Paul

wealdroam

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Okay, as I understand it.

They have in their eyes got a faulty product. It is well within 6 months.
I have the right to ask them to prove it is faulty whether that is via a manufacturer phone call or whatever means, then i have to collect and refund if that is what they want.
If they want a repair / replacement, it is ALL down to me to sort it out?

Does that sound right?

No, it's not right.

If a fault appears during the first six months following the sale, that fault can be assumed to have been present at the time of the sale and as such you, the seller, must either provide a remedy or prove that the fault wasn't present at the time of the sale.

In other words, if you can prove that the consumer has mistreated the goods in some way, or the problem is due to fair wear and tear, then you do not need to provide a remedy.

The consumer does not have to prove anything during the first six months following the sale.

Of course, until you have had a chance to inspect the thing, you cannot know how the fault came about.
Perhaps you can pay for the return but point out to the buyer that if no inherent fault is found he will need to cover no only the cost of returning the goods to him but also the cost of getting the goods to you (or the manufacturer) for inspection.