CRA & Returning Restock Fee

neilmcl

lebubble said:

Update.

I sent back both orders in their entirety rather than bits to save confusion/hassle.

They have issued a partial refund. I emailed to confirm why I only received a partial refund and the reasoning was due to a change of mind and they quoted their T&Cs rather than any diminished value reason. Their partial refund was not correct as well with a small difference which I also pointed out.

I have emailed alerting them that as it was a distance sale and their T&Cs do not over right consumer rights and legislation (Quoting CRA 2015) and that a 'Restock Fee' was prohibited and a full refund is due.

If they refuse, what should be my next steps or options? (Payment was made through Paypal and not a card just for information)

And still quoting the CRA when we've told you it's the CCRs that you need mention.

neilmcl

lebubble said:

Update 2.

I received a full refund and a lengthily response from them. Please someone tell me if what I am doing is wrong, harsh or over the top? I plan on replying to them regarding their response, I believe they may have being given wrong or bad information and have/are appling this charge to others.


I was told by them that placing an order I ticked a box agreeing to their T&Cs, this apparently allows them to charge the restock fee on returned items - again I believe and so it seems from what I have being told and read, this is still wrong regarding a distance sale/online order sent back within the 14 day period. Brick and mortar shops and outside of the 14 day period are different rules?

A screenshot from them (I am trying to find the source and not finding it) which says ''It is not against the law to charge a restocking fee provided this is clearly explained in terms and conditions and applies for returns requested after the initial 14 days return - Consumer Rights (Dated 19 Jun 2018).''

There is two things with that quote which I see is wrong. The first being if I am reading that correctly is that the restocking fee mentioned in the above quote is only chargeable outside of the 14 day returns period and again I assume this can only be applied at a brick and mortar shop or for an online order that falls outside of the 14 day return period?

I am trying to find something that I can show them clearly that states the fee can not be made, if someone could please help me with this. I am reading a lot of links etc. but it's all big words that mean nothing to an average joe like myself.

Or should I let it drop?  I now have the full refund. I was wanting to reply to them as I mentioned at the top of this post, that I wanted to reply to them showing why the charge can not be made which they say and believe can be, but I do realise this might stray from general forum advice into a whole legal hoo-ha.

If you can be bothered it may be worth writing back to them and explain that a customer cannot sign away their statutory consumer rights particularly by agreeing to a retailer's T&Cs, their T&Cs never overwrite a customer's legal rights.

DoaM

Their T&Cs cannot overrule statutory legislation - period. In fact, trying to remove a consumer's legal protections may be a criminal offence (which could be prosecuted by Trading Standards).

Your legilsation for reference is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ... this superseded the old Sale of Goods Act for consumers (so their reference to something from 2018 is bullocks), and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 ... this superseded the old Distance Selling Regulations.

lebubble

neilmcl said:

And still quoting the CRA when we've told you it's the CCRs that you need mention.

I wasn't aware as stupid as that may seem, I didn't see it being mentioned or made clear that the CCRs is what I should having be quoting specifically. There was a brief discussion over the confusion between the CRA and CCR with myself mentioning the DSR initially and providing the links referencing the CCR and the issue around the £42 value or less (Which you cleared up for me) and I thought the CRA was still what I was to go from. I do see that now that I could have and probably should have mentioned the CCR instead.

I assume with DoaM mentioning what they have said, that the CRA and CCR go hand in hand but the CCR goes that little bit more further? I assume I was not entirely wrong to quote the CRA, but quoting the CCR would have been more beneficial?

I will be responding to the company. I will quote them the CCR now as well with it's clearer information that I've found. Hopefully doing this they might change their T&Cs and stop charging this within the 14 day period.

Thank you both again for steering me in the right direction.

lebubble

Response drafted. Just looking for opinion.

Does this sound like a reasoned response, firm but without going too much in the way of becoming an emotionally attached response and sticking to facts (Regarding the returns saga)? 

I have tried to include a response to parts of their reply were it seems to have been aimed at me that the costs of being a small business and returning items and by ticking their tick box is the customers problem and is wrote in a way to try and make me feel I have done wrong?

Or would it be best to just pull everything after the links and keep the top half?

(Removed)

unholyangel

I would cut out all of that and send them this link and in particular, draw their attention to the following parts:

34.—(1) The trader must reimburse all payments, other than payments for delivery, received from the consumer, subject to paragraph (10).
(2) The trader must reimburse any payment for delivery received from the consumer, unless the consumer expressly chose a kind of delivery costing more than the least expensive common and generally acceptable kind of delivery offered by the trader.
(3) In that case, the trader must reimburse any payment for delivery received from the consumer up to the amount the consumer would have paid if the consumer had chosen the least expensive common and generally acceptable kind of delivery offered by the trader

(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.

And lastly:

(13) Where the provisions of this regulation apply to cancellation of a contract, the contract is to be treated as including those provisions as terms.

So regardless of whatever they put in their T&C's, those requirements form part of those T&C's, by law.  

And also from the consumer rights act :
A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the trader against any claim which the consumer may have against the trader.

P.S. I really dislike the new forum and how the functionality seems to be 5 steps backwards from what we had. 

lebubble

I had the legislation link you linked to in my response already - I can't post links on here yet - but yes after a reread there was a bit of waffle going on.

How is this, just kept it short and simple like you said with no waffle. Formatting is a little off on here though.

(Removed)

unholyangel

If you're providing them the link, there's no reason to quote the entire section. Your choice but including irrelevant parts just means they might get distracted by those parts and overlook the important ones you're trying to highlight. 

waamo

You should also inform Trading Standards of their behaviour. Far to often companies are allowed to get away with this behaviour. It's unlikely anything will be done but if enough people complain it helps.

With regards to forum functionality mentioned above this has been a downgrade not an upgrade. Unfortunately I got told off for my views on it and they were removed. 

lebubble

The parts I quoted was the sub sections you had listed. The formatting on here from copying across is a little over the place and looks like a wall of text.

Although I did take it out and simplified it more.

I don't know if informing TS is necessary at this point. I believe they have been misinformed just. I will see if providing them with current legislation might make them more aware and see that the information they seem to have been given may possibly be not correct.

Hi xxxxxxx,

Your information seems at odds of the current legislations.

 

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

Sub section 1 – 3,  8 - 11 and 13.

 

Consumer Rights Act 2015
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

Sub section 2

 

Best regards,

xxxxxxxx