Handling/restocking charges

Kazzie51

I ordered some wallpaper online and realised shortly afterwards that there had been some confusion with the decorator who had also ordered some of the materials needed. I contacted the company to try to cancel the same day. They said that this was not a problem, but as they had already requested the wallpaper from the manufacturer there would be a 25% restocking fee, which would be over £100. There is a statement in the terms and conditions that in the event of returns or cancellations there could be a restocking fee applied. However this seems excessive and I cannot see any reference to it on other websites selling wallpaper. I have looked at the Consumer Contracts regulations and cannot find any mention of this as an exclusion to the right to a refund. Is this a common practice?

dj1471

Assuming you are purchasing as a consumer, charging a restocking fee is unlawful per the CCRs - they must provide a full refund.

unholyangel

Kazzie51 wrote: »

I have looked at the Consumer Contracts regulations and cannot find any mention of this as an exclusion to the right to a refund. Is this a common practice?

You can't find any mention of it because it doesn't exist. The regulations are clear on what contracts are exempt from the regulations and also what goods/services are exempt from the right to cancel.

Unless you have provided graphics and asked them to custom make the wallpaper to your design, there is no possible exemption they could seek to rely on.

Furthermore, when do the T&C's say a contract is formed/acceptance takes place? If the T&C's (for example) state acceptance/formation isn't until dispatch then no contract exists until that event happens. Until an offer is accepted, it can be withdrawn at any time - meaning it cannot then be accepted and a contract cannot be formed - you cannot have liability for a contract that doesn't exist.

Kazzie51

Thank you for these helpful comments. I have spoken to Citizens Advice who gave similar information. I contacted the company again and they are claiming that because the goods left the manufacturer they have therefore been ‘handled* and are therefore no longer new. Reading the regulations this is not my interpretation of what is meant by ‘the value of the goods has been reduced by you handling them more than necessary ‘. As the wallpaper has now been delivered I am going to keep it as it is going to be easier, but it has left me very wary indeed. I frequently buy products online but have never come across anything like this.

dj1471

Indeed their argument is nonsense. I wouldn't keep it just because they're being difficult; you're entitled to a full refund.

unholyangel

Kazzie51 wrote: »

Thank you for these helpful comments. I have spoken to Citizens Advice who gave similar information. I contacted the company again and they are claiming that because the goods left the manufacturer they have therefore been ‘handled* and are therefore no longer new. Reading the regulations this is not my interpretation of what is meant by ‘the value of the goods has been reduced by you handling them more than necessary ‘. As the wallpaper has now been delivered I am going to keep it as it is going to be easier, but it has left me very wary indeed. I frequently buy products online but have never come across anything like this.

Of course its not, because the regulations state:

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

(10) An amount that may be recovered under paragraph (9)—

(a)may be deducted from the amount to be reimbursed under paragraph (1);
(b)otherwise, must be paid by the consumer to the trader.

(11) Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

So even if you had handled them (as the handling needs to be done by the consumer), unless it goes beyond what would be allowed in a shop, they'd have no possible claim - and even if your handling went beyond what was necessary, it would actually have to diminish the value. Goods are not normally diminished in value merely because they're touched (especially if they're in protective packaging like wallpaper usually is).

I hope CAB took details of your complaint and the response from theworstwallpaperplace to pass over to trading standards?