Company charging for shipping - Consumer Rights Act

bogeyman1815

I bought an electric scooter online, as i went out with it i noticed it was the wrong version. so i cut my journey short. 
I them they shipped me a wrong scooter, which they apologised for and said they will refund or ship out the correct scooter when it comes back in stock. i asked for a refund. they organised shipping and took it back, with no mention that ill be bearing the cost.

They sent me an email stating i had done 4 miles on the scooter, which they'll waiver to say sorry. but ill have to pay £100 shipping!! I looked on their t&c nothing about deductions. i am corrrect to assume its their fault and they should pay for shipping. They replied back stating on their new updated t&c that they're allowed to deduct. i know if i went to paypal and made a claim i would win, but can someone tell me where in the Consumer Rights Act where it states they are liable to pay for shipping, for item not as described/ wrong item sent, as they are soo adamant that im liable to pay for shipping. This is a UK company.
 

Aylesbury_Duck

Have a look at point 8, here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/20/enacted

Spank

They can't change the t&c after, do you have a copy of the original on durable media? I.e paper or email?

You can arrange your own shipping to them (but check the scooter is eligible otherwise insurance will be invalid)

Were_Doomed

The goods are already back with the supplier. Plus their T&Cs are also irrelevant as they cannot supersede the law.

The OP's only misdemeanour (if it can be called that) was using the goods for an "extended" period before noticing that they did not match their description ... I know nothing about such devices but was it not apparent prior to riding it that it was the wrong item? (Riding it for 4 miles seems excessive). The seller has now received used goods back which have diminished in value.

By the letter of the law the OP is correct - a full refund should be made as the goods do not match the description*. By the spirit of the law though the OP has caused a detriment to the seller by using the goods more than is necessary to confirm that they match the description. I believe in SOGA 1979 / the old DSRs there was an Acceptance element to the contract - using the goods (to such an extent) would be deemed acceptance by the consumer; I think the updated legislation(s) remove that element.

* An alternative remedy could have been for the OP to retain the goods for a price reduction.

bogeyman1815

@Were_Doomed the scooter travels max speed is 30mph, me doing 4 miles was only ridden for less than 10 minutes max. I notified them the day after I recieved the product. 

Were_Doomed

4 miles is still significantly more "wear" than 10 minutes ... the time is immaterial - you should have been able to notice the discrepancy well before travelling 4 miles. That still doesn't impact your rights - it's just that (IMHO) you've acted unreasonably - if the seller wanted to pursue you for the loss of value then they'd have to try the courts.

How did you pay? (I'm assuming the item cost was >£100).

born_again

Did the packaging not state which version it was?
You must have a lot of land to do 4 miles on given it is illegal to use these on public land/roads. 

KeithP

bogeyman1815 said:

@Were_Doomed the scooter travels max speed is 30mph, me doing 4 miles was only ridden for less than 10 minutes max. I notified them the day after I recieved the product. 

Are you really saying that you rode this unknown* machine at almost it's maximum speed for 10 minutes?



*unknown - because until that ride the OP hadn't even identified the model.

MothballsWallet

born_again said:

Did the packaging not state which version it was?
You must have a lot of land to do 4 miles on given it is illegal to use these on public land/roads. 

Just for clarity: does that include the pavements of public roads (if so, I see a lot of people use them on the pavements around here)?

KeithP

MothballsWallet said:

born_again said:

Did the packaging not state which version it was?
You must have a lot of land to do 4 miles on given it is illegal to use these on public land/roads. 

Just for clarity: does that include the pavements of public roads (if so, I see a lot of people use them on the pavements around here)?

They are a motor vehicle, therefore cannot be used on the pavement.

They are a motor vehicle, therefore need a number plate (and all the bureaucracy that goes with it) and the driver needs a Driving Licence covering the appropriate class of vehicle before they can be driven on the road. 

MothballsWallet

KeithP said:

MothballsWallet said:

born_again said:

Did the packaging not state which version it was?
You must have a lot of land to do 4 miles on given it is illegal to use these on public land/roads. 

Just for clarity: does that include the pavements of public roads (if so, I see a lot of people use them on the pavements around here)?

They are a motor vehicle, therefore cannot be used on the pavement.

They are a motor vehicle, therefore need a number plate (and all the bureaucracy that goes with it) and the driver needs a Driving Licence covering the appropriate class of vehicle before they can be driven on the road. 

Then there are quite a few people in Coventry breaking the law then - I see several people riding these things around the pavements in the city centre and near my house.

No point in reporting them - by the time the fuzz turn up in their diesel Astras, the scooters will be long gone, even if the local fuzz give a dam about doing anything.