Returned items lost by Royal Mail

Ath_Wat

Manxman_in_exile said:

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... ]

The section says that only if you ignore the previous sections which it follows on from, which make it clear that paragraph is about the timing of a refund, not about whether a refund is due.  A court would laugh at an argument like this, it's obvious what the whole thing means.  You can't quote pieces out of context.

The paragraph he has quoted exists to clarify that if the goods are returned, the refund must be within 14 days of the date they are despatched, not the date they arrive.  But they have to arrive.

Ath_Wat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

(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

Section 4 says that 5 will specify the times.

5 specifies the times.

5 has no purpose other than to specify times.

Ath_Wat

I think I'll order a £200,000 diamond ring, then give it to my cousin Larry to return.  If Larry loses it, the trader owes me £200K anyway.


Come on, think about it.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

I think I'll order a £200,000 diamond ring, then give it to my cousin Larry to return.  If Larry loses it, the trader owes me £200K anyway.


Come on, think about it.

A seller of a £200k diamond wouldn’t risk you returning it so would collect it, come on think about it  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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... ]

The section says that only if you ignore the previous sections which it follows on from, which make it clear that paragraph is about the timing of a refund, not about whether a refund is due.  A court would laugh at an argument like this, it's obvious what the whole thing means.  You can't quote pieces out of context.

The paragraph he has quoted exists to clarify that if the goods are returned, the refund must be within 14 days of the date they are despatched, not the date they arrive.  But they have to arrive.

I think you misunderstand the right, the consumer wishes to withdrawn from the contract and as such the refund is due, that it is. There is no question about whether or not the consumer is entitled to a refund, the legislation grants them one. 

Further reference to send rather than deliver:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32011L0083

Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal

1.   Unless the trader has offered to collect the goods himself, the consumer shall send back the goods or hand them over to the trader or to a person authorised by the trader to receive the goods, without undue delay and in any event not later than 14 days from the day on which he has communicated his decision to withdraw from the contract to the trader in accordance with Article 11. The deadline shall be met if the consumer sends back the goods before the period of 14 days has expired.

Manxman_in_exile

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.

So are you saying that if a trader pays out a refund under s34(5)(b), but that it eventually turns out that the returned goods have been lost in the post and never actually get delivered to the trader, that the trader can then recover the refund from the consumer?  

Because that seems to be the inevitable conclusion of what you are saying, but I'm uncertain what part of the legislation you would use to support that point of view. 

It seems to me that if the consumer can supply "evidence of having sent the goods back" as per s34(5)(b), then no more than14 days after the consumer provides that evidence to the trader, the trader must pay the refund to the consumer.  The trader has no choice in the matter but to pay up, doesn't he?  And that remains the case whether the goods get there just a couple of days after the refund has been paid or whether they end up lost in the post for ever.

If the returned goods never turn up I don't understand how the trader would get the refund back - which is what you seem to be saying they would be entitled to have.

(As I said in my earlier post, I agree with you that the apparent effect of s34(5)(b) is somewhat surprising, but it's wording seems clear and it's not necessarily apparent to me that it has to be read in the context of s34(4) or any other sections of the legislation.  But I'm happy to wait to be convinced otherwise.)

Manxman_in_exile

Just an observation that may or may not be of relevance...

I was looking at another thread earlier and ended up on the Uniqlo website.  Out of curiosity I thought I'd check what they said about returns.  Interestingly their guidance about Cancellation Rights and the Effects of Cancellation very accurately reflects the legislation - and also makes no mention that goods that get lost in the post can't be refunded.

Also, their returns policy says this:

"Returning via post:

Should you decide not to use the prepaid service stated above, please follow the instructions outlined below:

• Complete the returns process on this page and print the file generated when the process is completed.
• Enclose the Return Note/Packing slip in your package (the sheet with the information about the items you wish to return).
• Ensure the Product(s) are placed in a securely wrapped parcel.
• The returns should be posted to the address below:
  UNIQLO / Arvato
  Plot 10A Faraday Avenue
  Hams Hall Distribution Park
  Birmingham
  B46 1AL
  United Kingdom
• Take the parcel (with the enclosed returns note) to a Post Office or courier. Ask the Post Office or courier for proof of postage. You should retain this until you receive your refund. Regrettably, we can only provide a refund for a lost return once we have been provided with a proof of postage. [My emphasis]  *This only applies to customers who use our returns label."

Return Policy | UNIQLO

So I note that their own returns policy envisages the consumer not using their prepaid service but still being able to get a refund for returned goods - even when those goods have been lost in the post - so long as the consumer can supply proof of posting.

I appreciate that this is not conclusive of anything, but I think it can be read as supporting the view that even returned goods lost in the post can be eligible for refunds.

Indeed, I can't see how s34(5)(b) can be interpreted in any other way.  (Although that doesn't it's what Parliament intended it to mean - but that's what it says!)

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

I think I'll order a £200,000 diamond ring, then give it to my cousin Larry to return.  If Larry loses it, the trader owes me £200K anyway.


Come on, think about it.

If your cousin Larry loses it as opposed to the the Post Office or Royal Mail losing it, the trader won't owe you £200k as you won't be able to provide evidence of having sent the ring back.

Think about that... 

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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... ]

The section says that only if you ignore the previous sections which it follows on from, which make it clear that paragraph is about the timing of a refund, not about whether a refund is due.  A court would laugh at an argument like this, it's obvious what the whole thing means.  You can't quote pieces out of context.

The paragraph he has quoted exists to clarify that if the goods are returned, the refund must be within 14 days of the date they are despatched, not the date they arrive.  But they have to arrive.

Just to satisfy my curiosity - where does it say that they "have to arrive"?

I know it would seem "obvious" to any ordinary person that the returned goods should arrive, but I can't actually see where it says that in the legislation - and the legislators in question had many opportunities to make it clear that that is what they meant, but pointedly failed to do so.  (And, of course, there might be many reasons why they failed to do so.  Hic!) 

Yes - the argument might get laughed at in court - or it might not.  I think you'd have to be a very confident litigator to be able to say that a court would definitely throw the argument out.  I might very well be wrong, but I suspect you are not that person. Tell me I'm wrong and that you are that confident and omniscient litigator...  Go on ...

porkisnotmeat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

I must be missing something but where has the OP provided evidence of sending the items back?