Do I have to return a faulty item

help_needed_please

Hi there,

I purchased an item from a business who has both a shop and a website, I bought the item in person and collected it (I therefore didn't pay any shipping) but the item is faulty and the retailer is telling me I have to return the item myself as I didn't buy it online and am therefore not covered by distance selling laws, can anyone shed any light on wether I pay to return the item or return it myself or they should bear the cost of collecting the item.

Thanks in advance

Fosterdog

How long ago did you buy the item?

help_needed_please

Fosterdog wrote: »

How long ago did you buy the item?

Purchased it 2 weeks ago

DoaM

The seller is correct. As you bought face-to-face then the seller can insist on any remedy being provided face-to-face.

Fosterdog

help_needed_please wrote: »

Purchased it 2 weeks ago

Then the seller is correct that it is your responsibility to return it as you are using your short term right to reject, although you should be able to claim mileage for the return

DoaM

The seller's liability is based upon the delivery point. For online sales that is usually the consumer's home, hence why returns costs must be borne by the seller. For in-store sales the delivery point is the store, thus the seller can require the consumer to return the goods to the delivery point.

I may be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

unholyangel

Under the consumer rights act, unless you have previously agreed to return rejected goods, your only obligation is to make them available for collection (and even if you did agree to return rejected goods, the retailer is liable for the return postage costs).

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—
(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and
(b)the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

So no, you don't have to return them in person.

unholyangel

DoaM wrote: »

The seller's liability is based upon the delivery point. For online sales that is usually the consumer's home, hence why returns costs must be borne by the seller. For in-store sales the delivery point is the store, thus the seller can require the consumer to return the goods to the delivery point.

I may be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

Thats the consumer contract regulatioins (that require the goods returned to the place the consumer took physical possession of them).

unholyangel

glentoran99 wrote: »

did you miss the last part of your own post?


(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

No I didn't miss it and it doesn't mean what you think it does.

The explanatory notes also say that the stipulation wouldn't prevent a claim for damages where returning the goods in person would incur substantial costs. But nowhere in the act does it state that the consumer is under an obligation to return them in person.

It does however clearly state that the consumer must make them available for collection.

glentoran99

unholyangel wrote: »

No I didn't miss it and it doesn't mean what you think it does.

The explanatory notes also say that the stipulation wouldn't prevent a claim for damages where returning the goods in person would incur substantial costs. But nowhere in the act does it state that the consumer is under an obligation to return them in person.

It does however clearly state that the consumer must make them available for collection.

Yeah deleted my comment (not quick enough)

unholyangel

glentoran99 wrote: »

Yeah deleted my comment (not quick enough)

Whoops, sorry