Newspaper deal tablet - damaged

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

So you're saying I could get a tablet, smash it against a table and then say 'Sorry, the tablet wasn't strong enough'
This seems on par with your  get a builder to build you an extension, if he hasn't provided you with the relevant cancellation requirements then you get it for free posts.

Yes and no, if the trader has provided the correct information then they may reduce the refund for damage, excessive handling, handling or whatever term you wish to use.

If the trader hasn't provided the required information the legislation is effectively punishing the trader for this by removing their option to reduce the refund. What else do think 

(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.

means?

If you deal with honest businesses who comply with their legal obligations and smash your tablet against the table I doubt you are going to get much of a refund when cancelling the contract. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

So you're saying I could get a tablet, smash it against a table and then say 'Sorry, the tablet wasn't strong enough'
This seems on par with your  get a builder to build you an extension, if he hasn't provided you with the relevant cancellation requirements then you get it for free posts.

Yes and no, if the trader has provided the correct information then they may reduce the refund for damage, excessive handling, handling or whatever term you wish to use.

If the trader hasn't provided the required information the legislation is effectively punishing the trader for this by removing their option to reduce the refund. What else do think 

(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.

means?

If you deal with honest businesses who comply with their legal obligations and smash your tablet against the table I doubt you are going to get much of a refund when cancelling the contract. 

I disgaree. Common sense needs to be applied here. That's your interpretation of the legislation, mine is the opposite. 'Beyond what is necessary' does not mean damaging goods. Maybe you could fund the OP to take this matter to court and see how it pans out.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

So you're saying I could get a tablet, smash it against a table and then say 'Sorry, the tablet wasn't strong enough'
This seems on par with your  get a builder to build you an extension, if he hasn't provided you with the relevant cancellation requirements then you get it for free posts.

Yes and no, if the trader has provided the correct information then they may reduce the refund for damage, excessive handling, handling or whatever term you wish to use.

If the trader hasn't provided the required information the legislation is effectively punishing the trader for this by removing their option to reduce the refund. What else do think 

(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.

means?

If you deal with honest businesses who comply with their legal obligations and smash your tablet against the table I doubt you are going to get much of a refund when cancelling the contract. 

I disgaree. Common sense needs to be applied here. That's your interpretation of the legislation, mine is the opposite. 'Beyond what is necessary' does not mean damaging goods. Maybe you could fund the OP to take this matter to court and see how it pans out.

Beyond what is necessary is anything other than what is necessary.

OP hasn't been back yet to tell us what information they received so none of us know what they entitled to, your posts appear to imply that I'm stating this applies in all situations, it doesn't, only those where the trader doesn't provide the require information. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

Again I disagree as what you said does not encompass '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.'

But it doesn't say that as you've left out an important word, it says is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish. 

Damaging the goods would be beyond. 

So you're saying I could get a tablet, smash it against a table and then say 'Sorry, the tablet wasn't strong enough'
This seems on par with your  get a builder to build you an extension, if he hasn't provided you with the relevant cancellation requirements then you get it for free posts.

Yes and no, if the trader has provided the correct information then they may reduce the refund for damage, excessive handling, handling or whatever term you wish to use.

If the trader hasn't provided the required information the legislation is effectively punishing the trader for this by removing their option to reduce the refund. What else do think 

(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.

means?

If you deal with honest businesses who comply with their legal obligations and smash your tablet against the table I doubt you are going to get much of a refund when cancelling the contract. 

I disgaree. Common sense needs to be applied here. That's your interpretation of the legislation, mine is the opposite. 'Beyond what is necessary' does not mean damaging goods. Maybe you could fund the OP to take this matter to court and see how it pans out.

Beyond what is necessary is anything other than what is necessary.

OP hasn't been back yet to tell us what information they received so none of us know what they entitled to, your posts appear to imply that I'm stating this applies in all situations, it doesn't, only those where the trader doesn't provide the require information. 

That's exactly what i'm talking about. It's all well and good giving your interpretation of the law, however should the OP follow it and lose, that's a different ball game. You can't honestly think that if you receive an item which misses some imformation, you can then damage it and then expect a full refund.

No damage I agree, but damaged - No.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

So can you tell me what 

(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.

means?

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

So can you tell me what 

(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.

means?

In my opinion this:

establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods

Does not mean breaking an item, in this case, cracking the screen so the tracking does not work.

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

The principle of the legislation is to mirror your rights as if you were in a shop... if you were in a shop and broke one of the display TVs you would be liable for the damage you have caused. It therefore follows that negligent or willful damage would also be expected to be your liability.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

So can you tell me what 

(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.

means?

In my opinion this:

establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods

Does not mean breaking an item, in this case, cracking the screen so the tracking does not work.

Which puts us back to missing out the word beyond, breaking the item is handling beyond what is required to establish.

Sandtree said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

The principle of the legislation is to mirror your rights as if you were in a shop... if you were in a shop and broke one of the display TVs you would be liable for the damage you have caused. It therefore follows that negligent or willful damage would also be expected to be your liability.

The principle of the legislation (or at least the part focusing on the right to cancel) is presumably to give consumers confidence to shop online by way allowing them to withdraw from the contract should goods they can not physically see in advance not be to their expectation.

From the trader's point of view the improvement over the old DRS regs with the current cancellation regs was the introduction of the allowance to reduce the refund for diminished value, but only should the retailer comply with the required information.

The wording used is very straightforward, if "damage" was excluded why isn't this stated as an exclusion to paragraph 11? 

The gov guidance states

14. You have a right to deduct monies from refunds where goods show signs of unreasonable use leading to diminished value. You cannot usually deduct for removal of packaging to inspect the item, but you can deduct for damage or wear and tear where the item has not just been checked but used.

So by their interpretation "damage" is already covered under handling beyond which paragraph 11 then goes on to exclude without the required info.

Again if the trader is following their obligations they have nothing to worry about right?

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

So can you tell me what 

(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.

means?

In my opinion this:

establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods

Does not mean breaking an item, in this case, cracking the screen so the tracking does not work.

Which puts us back to missing out the word beyond, breaking the item is handling beyond what is required to establish.

Sandtree said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The answer depends upon whether they provided the purchaser with the correct durable information regarding your right to cancel the contract.

If they did then there is the right to cancel and that period is at the end of 14 days after the day on which delivery took place and they can reduce the refund (up to the full contract price) for "excessive handling".

If they didn't provide the correct information then the purchaser has 1 year and 14 days to cancel and a full refund is due regardless of the condition of the item. 

If they didn't provide the info there may be a moral consideration regarding returning something that's been damaged but that doesn't affect your consumer rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(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.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2

(l)where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38; 

Extended cancellation period is detailed here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/31

I disagree. Damage is totally different to excessive handling.

The regs don't actually use the words excessive but as above simply handling of the goods and damage would occur by way of handling something. Equally any imperfection to goods could referred to as damage but ultimately is classed as diminished value so it doesn't really matter either way.  

The principle of the legislation is to mirror your rights as if you were in a shop... if you were in a shop and broke one of the display TVs you would be liable for the damage you have caused. It therefore follows that negligent or willful damage would also be expected to be your liability.

The principle of the legislation (or at least the part focusing on the right to cancel) is presumably to give consumers confidence to shop online by way allowing them to withdraw from the contract should goods they can not physically see in advance not be to their expectation.

From the trader's point of view the improvement over the old DRS regs with the current cancellation regs was the introduction of the allowance to reduce the refund for diminished value, but only should the retailer comply with the required information.

The wording used is very straightforward, if "damage" was excluded why isn't this stated as an exclusion to paragraph 11? 

The gov guidance states

14. You have a right to deduct monies from refunds where goods show signs of unreasonable use leading to diminished value. You cannot usually deduct for removal of packaging to inspect the item, but you can deduct for damage or wear and tear where the item has not just been checked but used.

So by their interpretation "damage" is already covered under handling beyond which paragraph 11 then goes on to exclude without the required info.

Again if the trader is following their obligations they have nothing to worry about right?

I think you're clutching at straws trying to make your argument fit the legislation. If this went to court, no way would it be accpeted that cracking a screen is covered.

MalMonroe

andyflemin said:

Hi folks,

This is complete shot in the dark, I doubt there’s anything that can be done but fingers crossed.

My elderly grandparents have recently bought a tablet from a newspaper “deal” and got completely ripped off. £180 for something that extremely poor quality build, at least 10 years out of date (3G mobile data, usb 2.0 and slots for full size and micro sims but not nano), out of date android OS and is being sold on the companies website for £100 (still a rip off in my opinion). 

I believe they are still within the time period to return under the distance selling regulations however the issue is that they have damaged it already (cracked screen and touch tracking doesn’t work above the crack). Do they have any rights of return for even a partial refund? I do not have much trust in the good faith of a company who takes out newspaper ads to scam old people.

Thanks very much

Hi, I guess I could be called an older person since I've turned 70 now but I have to say that it isn't just older people who are sucked in by scams anywhere, including in newspapers. The company may have taken out a newspaper ad to scam anyone. Not just old people.

But it doesn't matter whether you are old or not, responding to a 'scam' or not. If an item's delivered and you break it, then how can you possibly return it for a refund? It's not even slight damage either by the sound of it. 

I hate to think of people being ripped off no matter what age they are but in this case, I don't think your grandparents can claim a refund. You are the one who has judged the item to be outdated and substandard - and if it hadn't been broken then yes, they could certainly have returned it for a refund but it's not now fit for purpose. And the company who sold it will, of course, argue that it WAS fit for purpose when they sent it. Because it was - and now they won't be able to resell it. 

If you think it's a scam please do report it to Citizens Advice because they can raise a case with Trading Standards. See the following link - 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/resources-and-tools/search-navigation-tools/Search/?q=trading+standards+and+scams&c=TOP-PUBLIC

That way you'll be helping others who may fall for the spiel. And CA may advise you contact the company and ask if they can do anything, as a goodwill gesture. It's worth a try but I doubt they will. Stranger things have happened though. 

Hopefully next time your grandparents want to buy something like that they will ask your advice first.