Who Pays The Carriage?

paulwilko10

wealdroam wrote: »

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.

I agree with Currys, it stops time wasters.

If it is faulty, why would any customer want to spend more time arguing with the seller when a quick call to the manufacturer could A: Solve the issue because it is not faulty or B: Get it agreed it is faulty and give the seller an RMA #

I dont understand why customers have time to argue rather than solve the issue.

Yes someone has to pay and of course the customer should not have to pay if it is faulty, but please be helpful and prove it is faulty with a simple call to the manufacturer who in the first place may get it solved over the phone and if need be replaced the very next day.

Now this whole episode has has been going on since last Thursday and only today been resolved to a certain level with us paying but refunding less if not faulty.

wealdroam

paulwilko10 wrote: »

If it is faulty, why would any customer want to spend more time arguing with the seller when a quick call to the manufacturer could A: Solve the issue because it is not faulty or B: Get it agreed it is faulty and give the seller an RMA #

Probably because they have a contractual arrangement with whoever sold the thing to them.

That's not particularly a 'consumer' issue.

I repeat, during the first six months following a sale it is your job to do any proving that may be necessary.
Why should the consumer need to do that work for you by going through the manufacturer? As a seller, that's your job.

paulwilko10

wealdroam wrote: »

Probably because they have a contractual arrangement with whoever sold the thing to them.

That's not particularly a 'consumer' issue.

I repeat, during the first six months following a sale it is your job to do any proving that may be necessary.
Why should the consumer need to do that work for you by going through the manufacturer? As a seller, that's your job.

Wow, now we have yet another answer, you say it is my job, others say it is the customers if especially they are asking for a refund, now you can see why it is confusing!

wealdroam

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Wow, now we have yet another answer, you say it is my job, others say it is the customers if especially they are asking for a refund, now you can see why it is confusing!

I was basing my response on your example:

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?

When you re-read post#2, repeated later in post#9, did you not notice the different reaction needed during the first thirty days - when the consumer exercises their short term right to reject?

DoaM

paulwilko10 wrote: »

Wow, now we have yet another answer, you say it is my job, others say it is the customers if especially they are asking for a refund, now you can see why it is confusing!

Within the first 30 days only! And only if they're demanding a refund! To use BASIC logic code:

IF (not within 30 days OR not demanding a refund) AND within 6 months THEN it's your job not the consumer's

The answers have been consistent - you're just not appreciating the subtleties.

paulwilko10

DoaM wrote: »

Within the first 30 days only! And only if they're demanding a refund! To use BASIC logic code:

IF (not within 30 days OR not demanding a refund) AND within 6 months THEN it's your job not the consumer's

The answers have been consistent - you're just not appreciating the subtleties.

But that is not my example, why are you talking about things that are not relevant to my example?

Its within 30 days and they WANT a REFUND

wealdroam

paulwilko10 wrote: »

But that is not my example, why are you talking about things that are not relevant to my example?

Its within 30 days and they WANT a REFUND

Again... your example:

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?

paulwilko10

wealdroam wrote: »

Again... your example:

Ok, that was an extreme example of me saying the consumer rights is a farce at time, by the time this was written, it had been agreed I can ask the customer to show proof of fault.

Anyway, i have just had an interesting call with a legal person and I am clear what is right and wrong.

All sorted thanks

DoaM

Unless that legal person is an expert in consumer law, don't presume that what they've said is necessarily right.

There are several people who help out here who know far more about consumer law than your local solicitor will.

paulwilko10

DoaM wrote: »

Unless that legal person is an expert in consumer law, don't presume that what they've said is necessarily right.

Certainly is :T

To be totally honest, i did not know we subscribed to the service. I now have all the legal advice i need now lol

Thanks everyone though, its been a complete headache, but getting there now

Paul