Returned items lost by Royal Mail

Ath_Wat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP if you were cancelling your contract under the right to cancel then the regulations appear to place the risk of the goods in transit with the trader. The trader must refund as per:

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

That is just in regard to the time scale in which a refund has to be made.  It is not saying that just having evidence of sending them back is fine if they never get there.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP if you were cancelling your contract under the right to cancel then the regulations appear to place the risk of the goods in transit with the trader. The trader must refund as per:

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

That is just in regard to the time scale in which a refund has to be made.  It is not saying that just having evidence of sending them back is fine if they never get there.

It reads as pretty clear cut to me, if the consumer provides evidence of return, the trader must refund within 14 days. The only reduction in the refund permitted is for diminished value.

The regulations appear to place the risk of return upon the trader and should they not wish to increase this risk by allowing the consumer to return they should instead collect the goods.

I don't see the point in having sentence (b) if the risk of return is placed upon the consumer. 

It's only my view, always happy to be corrected if you have a source to suggest otherwise  

Olinda99

I wonder if sec 43 overrides this - it implies that on receipt of the goods the risk transfers to the consumer and there is nothing about it transferring back to the merchant at any point (including transit back for a return) ie the consumer bears the risk until the returned goods come either 1. into the possession if the merchant or 2. the possession of the nominated return carrier paid for by the merchant 

Passing of risk

43.—(1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Olinda99 said:

I wonder if sec 43 overrides this - it implies that on receipt of the goods the risk transfers to the consumer and there is nothing about it transferring back to the merchant at any point (including transit back for a return) ie the consumer bears the risk until the returned goods come either 1. into the possession if the merchant or 2. the possession of the nominated return carrier paid for by the merchant 

Passing of risk

43.—(1) A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

On that basis risk would never pass back and the consumer would always be responsible even after the trader has received it.

Olinda99

Ah but isn't 'risk' associated with everything that occurs before the return is complete and once the return IS complete then there is no risk anyway!

Just musing really!

Ath_Wat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP if you were cancelling your contract under the right to cancel then the regulations appear to place the risk of the goods in transit with the trader. The trader must refund as per:

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

That is just in regard to the time scale in which a refund has to be made.  It is not saying that just having evidence of sending them back is fine if they never get there.

It reads as pretty clear cut to me, if the consumer provides evidence of return, the trader must refund within 14 days. The only reduction in the refund permitted is for diminished value.

The regulations appear to place the risk of return upon the trader and should they not wish to increase this risk by allowing the consumer to return they should instead collect the goods.

I don't see the point in having sentence (b) if the risk of return is placed upon the consumer. 

It's only my view, always happy to be corrected if you have a source to suggest otherwise  

It's because you have partially quoted it.  If you include paragraph 4, it is clear that paragraph 5 is just clarifying times.  They can't delay reimbursing you because it took  a long time to get back to them, is the point.  Not that it needn't get back to them.

Do you honestly think that the law says you can send items back on a whim, uninsured and as cheaply as possible,  and if they get lost in the post, the supplier takes the hit?

(4) Reimbursement must be without undue delay, and in any event not later than the time specified in paragraph (5) or (6).

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP if you were cancelling your contract under the right to cancel then the regulations appear to place the risk of the goods in transit with the trader. The trader must refund as per:

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

That is just in regard to the time scale in which a refund has to be made.  It is not saying that just having evidence of sending them back is fine if they never get there.

It reads as pretty clear cut to me, if the consumer provides evidence of return, the trader must refund within 14 days. The only reduction in the refund permitted is for diminished value.

The regulations appear to place the risk of return upon the trader and should they not wish to increase this risk by allowing the consumer to return they should instead collect the goods.

I don't see the point in having sentence (b) if the risk of return is placed upon the consumer. 

It's only my view, always happy to be corrected if you have a source to suggest otherwise  

It's because you have partially quoted it.  If you include paragraph 4, it is clear that paragraph 5 is just clarifying times.  They can't delay reimbursing you because it took  a long time to get back to them, is the point.  Not that it needn't get back to them.

Do you honestly think that the law says you can send items back on a whim, uninsured and as cheaply as possible,  and if they get lost in the post, the supplier takes the hit?

(4) Reimbursement must be without undue delay, and in any event not later than the time specified in paragraph (5) or (6).

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

I don't see what paragraph 4 not being quoted has do with how 5 is interrupted?  

It's very clear, customer provides evidence of sending the goods back (not returned or delivered but sent), trader refunds within 14 days.

You miss the point that consumer protection laws favour the consumer, if the trader doesn't want to suffer such a risk they should collect the goods. 

Do you honestly expect the consumer to be aware of the manner in which all goods should be returned? So it's £950 on this occasion, what if it was £10,000? Why do you think the law would place this burden upon the consumer? If the trader doesn't want to lose out they can use their trusted courier that delivered to in turn collect. They are entitled to charge the consumer the direct cost of collection so there is no loss to the trader for collecting the goods.

Again if you have a source I'm happy to be corrected. 

powerful_Rogue

Section 35 seems to cover this in more details.

Return of goods in the event of cancellation

Manxman_in_exile

But doesn't s35 only talk about the return of goods insofar as it is either the trader's responsibility to collect them or the consumer's responsibility to "send" them back - it doesn't mention the trader having to have "received" them?

So in that sense it's no more detailed or clear than s34(5)(b) talking about the consumer providing evidence of sending the goods back with no mention of whether they arrive or get lost - is it?

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP if you were cancelling your contract under the right to cancel then the regulations appear to place the risk of the goods in transit with the trader. The trader must refund as per:

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or

(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

That is just in regard to the time scale in which a refund has to be made.  It is not saying that just having evidence of sending them back is fine if they never get there.

It reads as pretty clear cut to me, if the consumer provides evidence of return, the trader must refund within 14 days. The only reduction in the refund permitted is for diminished value.

The regulations appear to place the risk of return upon the trader and should they not wish to increase this risk by allowing the consumer to return they should instead collect the goods.

I don't see the point in having sentence (b) if the risk of return is placed upon the consumer. 

It's only my view, always happy to be corrected if you have a source to suggest otherwise  

... Do you honestly think that the law says you can send items back on a whim, uninsured and as cheaply as possible,  and if they get lost in the post, the supplier takes the hit?

Well, no - that doesn't sound right to me either, and it's a bit of a surprise if that's what Parliament intended.

And yet... that is exactly what the wording of the section appears to say.  If Parliament had meant that the goods must be physically delivered back to the trader before a refund was payable, wouldn't the legislation expressly say that?  

The very fact that s34(5)(b) exists in its current wording at all suggests that it was drafted in anticipation of precisely the sort of situation you describe, where returned goods get lost in the post.  Why else would the legislation provide for a refund to be paid before the trader received the goods back?  Perhaps the lunatic is right and it was Parliament's intention all along that if the trader doesn't want to suffer the risk then they must arrange for collection.

On the other hand, of course, it might just be an oversight on the part of the Parliamentary draftsmen and the politicians who passed it.  Or it might just be exactly what they intended... 

And let's face it - a lot of legislation either doesn't make much sense in some respects or might appear to be unfair

[Edit:  Just to clarify, if I were a consumer I would not like to have to argue in court that it was not necessary for the trader to ever receive the goods back, but if I were a trader, neither would I like to have to argue that I did have to receive the goods back.  It's rather an open question... ]