Who Pays The Carriage?

DoaM

No ... within 6 months (but after the 30 day short term right to reject) any fault is assumed to be inherent and it is for the retailer to prove otherwise.

After 6 months the burden of proof switches to the consumer. Therefore after 6 months you can require the consumer to get an RMA number from the manufacturer - but not before 6 months.

Postage costs (where a fault is agreed) are to be borne by the retailer.

paulwilko10

In this case, that is exactly what I am doing.

However, in post # 2 which you refered me to, it's said
"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)."

How can he prove it is faulty without either videoing it, showing examples or get an rma from the manufacturer?

Thank you again

Paul

DoaM

Was the consumer reporting a fault within 30 days of purchase and demanding a refund?

paulwilko10

DoaM wrote: »

No ... within 6 months (but after the 30 day short term right to reject) any fault is assumed to be inherent and it is for the retailer to prove otherwise.

After 6 months the burden of proof switches to the consumer. Therefore after 6 months you can require the consumer to get an RMA number from the manufacturer - but not before 6 months.

Postage costs (where a fault is agreed) are to be borne by the retailer.

How can the fault be agreed if i dont have the product in my possession?

Example, its after 30 days but before 6 months. Customer phones me and says it is faulty. At my own cost, i collect and find in fact it is not faulty and is a set up issue by the customer, who pays to collect and then send it back to the customer?

This is where in my opinion the whole consumer rights is a farce at times

Thanks

Paul

paulwilko10

DoaM wrote: »

Was the consumer reporting a fault within 30 days of purchase and demanding a refund?

Yes, all of a sudden they are happy with the printer they had originally!!

DoaM

paulwilko10 wrote: »

How can the fault be agreed if i dont have the product in my possession?

Example, its after 30 days but before 6 months. Customer phones me and says it is faulty. At my own cost, i collect and find in fact it is not faulty and is a set up issue by the customer, who pays to collect and then send it back to the customer?

This is where in my opinion the whole consumer rights is a farce at times

Thanks

Paul

That gets charged to the consumer ... provided that you've made this clear in the T&Cs you presented to the consumer in a durable medium (e.g. via email. A link in an email to website T&Cs are not classed as durable).

You should really know such basics before embarking on an online business venture.

DoaM

DoaM wrote: »

Was the consumer reporting a fault within 30 days of purchase and demanding a refund?

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Yes, all of a sudden they are happy with the printer they had originally!!

In that case you're entitled to get them to prove the issue. An RMA number from the manufacturer would seem to be acceptable proof.

So it seems you've acted correctly, but not really understood why.

paulwilko10

DoaM wrote: »

That gets charged to the consumer ... provided that you've made this clear in the T&Cs you presented to the consumer in a durable medium (e.g. via email. A link in an email to website T&Cs are not classed as durable).

You should really know such basics before embarking on an online business venture.

I did know it, you have just confirmed I knew it!

paulwilko10

DoaM wrote: »

In that case you're entitled to get them to prove the issue. An RMA number from the manufacturer would seem to be acceptable proof.

So it seems you've acted correctly, but not really understood why.

By hook or by crook lol

Thanks

Paul

wealdroam

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Example, its after 30 days but before 6 months. Customer phones me and says it is faulty. At my own cost, i collect and find in fact it is not faulty and is a set up issue by the customer, who pays to collect and then send it back to the customer?

This is where in my opinion the whole consumer rights is a farce at times

Thanks

Paul

I'll ignore the 'farce' comment.

Somebody has to pay for the return carriage, don't they?
Let's reverse that for a moment...
If the consumer has goods which are indeed inherently faulty, then why should he initially have to bear the cost of the return?

Either the buyer or seller will have to pay the cost of the return and there is a chance, a 50-50 chance, that one of them will need to be refunded that cost by the other.

I'm not recommending it as best practice, but apparently Currys charge all their customers £50 to have allegedly faulty good to be inspected, but refund that amount if the problem is found to be due to an inherent fault.