Changing mind about an online purchase - refund of original postage costs

redheadedlady

Help please...I'm confused.  I purchased some yarn online and when it arrived it wasn't the colour I thought it would be.  My understanding was that if purchasing online I had the right to examine the goods once they arrived (I had checked before buying, both on my PC and on my phone, but the "real life" colour is much much brighter than on either screen and not what I'd use at all).

So I called the store to let them know the colour wasn't as expected and to make sure that I should return it to the actual shop address.  I was told that their terms and conditions say that they will not refund original postage costs simply because a customer changes their mind, and because they'd clearly stated this I'll only be refunded for the cost of the yarn.  I didn't pay for a premium delivery service (I understand that in that instance I'd only be refunded the basic postage cost) and I understand that I'm responsible for the cost of returning the yarn to the shop.  But I'm being told that no postage costs whatsoever will be refunded.

Is this correct, if a seller states "no postage refunds" in their Ts&Cs?  I've had a quick look through the Consumer Contracts Regs and can't see anything to this effect, but am I missing something somewhere?

Uptown_Boy

A seller's T&Cs cannot overrule the Law ... The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. When a consumer exercises their lawful right to return goods from a distance sale then they are entitled to a full refund of ALL monies paid, including the original (standard) shipping cost. Chapter 3, section 34 (2) refers.

If the T&Cs provided in a durable means (email is OK; a link in an email to website T&Cs is not - a consumer is not bound by any contract terms that were not provided to them in a durable means) state that the consumer is liable for returns costs then so be it - if they don't (and I suspect this seller's handling of online sales is very lackadaisical) then the seller is also liable for the returns cost.

redheadedlady

Thank you Uptown_Boy.  That's what I thought.

But I've just had another look at the Regulations and - as you state - Part 3, section 34 (2) says "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."

That I understand.

However, Part 3, section 34 (1) says "The trader must reimburse all payments, other than payments for delivery, received from the consumer, subject to paragraph (10)."

Paragraph 10 refers to paragraph 9 which concerns any reduction in the value of goods due to excessive handling (which I assume means over and above what a customer would be able to do in a shop).  So what is the significance of the phrase "other than payments for delivery".  That's confused me now I've read it.  Is that what's confused the seller?  Does it just mean that paragraph (10) is the only exception that can be made to a full refund and that payments for delivery are exempt from that exception?

Maybe I should have checked for replies earlier, before pouring this large G&T? 

Uptown_Boy

34(1), 34(2) and 34(3) are taken together. 34(1) excludes the delivery charge because it is covered in 34(2). 34(3) then clarifies exactly what the seller must refund as regards delivery charges.

redheadedlady

Thank you. Let's hope she's just confused by the first part.  I'll try to explain to her tomorrow, although I have to admit that based on her assertion that "I don't have to do anything just because you say I have to...I've had expert advice" I don't hold out much hope. 

Wish me luck!

unholyangel

redheadedlady said:

Thank you Uptown_Boy.  That's what I thought.

But I've just had another look at the Regulations and - as you state - Part 3, section 34 (2) says "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."

That I understand.

However, Part 3, section 34 (1) says "The trader must reimburse all payments, other than payments for delivery, received from the consumer, subject to paragraph (10)."

Paragraph 10 refers to paragraph 9 which concerns any reduction in the value of goods due to excessive handling (which I assume means over and above what a customer would be able to do in a shop).  So what is the significance of the phrase "other than payments for delivery".  That's confused me now I've read it.  Is that what's confused the seller?  Does it just mean that paragraph (10) is the only exception that can be made to a full refund and that payments for delivery are exempt from that exception?

Maybe I should have checked for replies earlier, before pouring this large G&T? 

You forgot to read the sentence after that one. 

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.

The significance of "other than payment for delivery" is because monies paid for the goods are subject to paragraph 10 but monies paid for delivery are not subject to paragraph 10. 

redheadedlady

Unholyangel...I love your comment that I'd forgotten to read something which I'd actually said I'd understood right at the beginning of my reply to Uptown_Boy.  Thanks for the giggle, whether it was intentional or not.

unholyangel

redheadedlady said:

Unholyangel...I love your comment that I'd forgotten to read something which I'd actually said I'd understood right at the beginning of my reply to Uptown_Boy.  Thanks for the giggle, whether it was intentional or not.

Why the confusion over paragraph 10, if you understood paragraph 2? You asked if it was an exemption from the exception, for delivery. If you understood paragraph 2, surely you wouldn't need to ask that question? 

You also didn't say in your OP that the seller had made any mention of CCRs. Have they actually said that is their belief of CCRs? Or is it possible they're not aware of their obligations at all? 

FWIW, yarn does sometimes show up drastically different in photos. I had one that was a lovely pink in natural light but a garish horrendous shade (almost neon looking) in the wrong lighting conditions. I've found searching for images of the shade online can help as normally there will be multiple picutres from different sources (sometimes even from WIPs). It gives a better idea of what to expect. 

zoob

Yes if the OP returns the item back via the online process there definitely entitled to a refund off postage costs under law, but if the OP returns item to a store then there not following the online return procedure and refund off postage is not an entitlement 

unholyangel

zoob said:

Yes if the OP returns the item back via the online process there definitely entitled to a refund off postage costs under law, but if the OP returns item to a store then there not following the online return procedure and refund off postage is not an entitlement 

That not always true. The CCRs allow them to hand the goods back to the trader or someone authorised by the trader to receive them. 

So I suppose it would depend if the store was the same entity as the website. It's not uncommon for businesses to have that set up though - tesco is the first one that comes to mind. Tesco Stores Ltd and Tesco Direct Ltd.