Returned items lost by Royal Mail

porkisnotmeat

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!)

OP hasn't provided proof of postage though.

Printing a label is not proof of postage, it's proof of you buying postage.

robertsyer

porkisnotmeat said:

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?

Thanks for the comments guys, really helpful. 

The trader had specified approved returns couriers I.e Royal Mail, which we used. We have proof of postage and Royal Mail have confirmed that the parcel has been lost and provided £60 in compensation (which we haven’t cashed). 

Thanks again,

Manxman_in_exile

@porkisnotmeat -  I can only speak for myself and I'm going by the OP saying:

robertsyer said:

...I wasn’t happy with the items so returned them, following the retailer’s instructions using their printable label. 

I sent the parcel using Royal Mail signed for, unfortunately it’s now passed 10 working days and Rotal Mail have classed the parcel as lost...

I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that if it was sent signed for and that if RM have "classed the parcel as lost", that the OP must have some "evidence of having sent the goods back" as required by s34(5)(b), and that it isn't (obviously!) just about printing off a label.  But I'm no expert in RM services and if you are better informed about these matters than I am, I'm happy to be put right.

Since then the thread has veered off topic into a wider discussion about whether goods actually have to be physically delivered to the trader to be eligible for a refund, or whether the consumer simply needs to be able to provide evidence that they have been sent back.

[Edit: cross-posted with OP]

Manxman_in_exile

robertsyer said:

porkisnotmeat said:

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?

Thanks for the comments guys, really helpful. 

The trader had specified approved returns couriers I.e Royal Mail, which we used. We have proof of postage and Royal Mail have confirmed that the parcel has been lost and provided £60 in compensation (which we haven’t cashed). 

Thanks again,

Well my view (and I think that of @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head) is that you are entitled to a full refund (£950?) from the trader no later than 14 days after you provide proof of postage to them.

The contrary view (held by @Ath_Wat) would seem to be that you are only entitled to the £60 (although you said £50 earlier) compensation from RM.

I'll be 100% honest and say I don't know which view is right - but to me the legislation appears to say you are entitled to a full refund from the trader.  However, I'm always a bit skeptical about people who know what the right answer is...

If I were you, I'd wait to see what else @Ath_Wat has to say...

Manxman_in_exile

porkisnotmeat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!)

OP hasn't provided proof of postage though.

Printing a label is not proof of postage, it's proof of you buying postage.

Don't mean to offend, but your username doesn't exactly single you out as being particularly reliable as a source of advice - or anything really... 

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.

Sorry - meant to make this point earlier but forgot.

Where does it say in the legislation that the returned goods must have been received by the trader for a refund to be due?  All I can see that is necessary for a refund to be paid is that the consumer clearly communicates to the trader that they are cancelling the contract and that they can provide evidence of sending the goods back.  Where does it say that receipt by the trader is necessary?

Ath_Wat

Manxman_in_exile said:

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... 

Of course I will.  Larry can give me a receipt, just like anyone else can.  It's a business transaction.

He acknowledges losing it, he's done nothing wrong.  I don't need to chase him for compensation because the company will pay me anyway; the company can't chase him because they have no contract with him.

Ath_Wat

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Sorry - meant to make this point earlier but forgot.

Where does it say in the legislation that the returned goods must have been received by the trader for a refund to be due?  All I can see that is necessary for a refund to be paid is that the consumer clearly communicates to the trader that they are cancelling the contract and that they can provide evidence of sending the goods back.  Where does it say that receipt by the trader is necessary?

Cancellation of a contract requires both parties to be put back where they were.  If the goods have not been returned the contract is not cancelled.  Just informing of your intention to cancel is not cancelling it.

I don't know where this is written, but it will be written somewhere.  The piece you are hanging your hat on is clear in that it relates ONLY to timings.

You cannot talk about law by taking one clause out of context.  I've told you this enough times, if you persist in believing you can, that is your problem,.  Take it to court if you like.  See how you get on.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Sorry - meant to make this point earlier but forgot.

Where does it say in the legislation that the returned goods must have been received by the trader for a refund to be due?  All I can see that is necessary for a refund to be paid is that the consumer clearly communicates to the trader that they are cancelling the contract and that they can provide evidence of sending the goods back.  Where does it say that receipt by the trader is necessary?

Cancellation of a contract requires both parties to be put back where they were.  If the goods have not been returned the contract is not cancelled.  Just informing of your intention to cancel is not cancelling it.

I don't know where this is written, but it will be written somewhere.  The piece you are hanging your hat on is clear in that it relates ONLY to timings.

You cannot talk about law by taking one clause out of context.  I've told you this enough times, if you persist in believing you can, that is your problem,.  Take it to court if you like.  See how you get on.

The contract is cancelled once the consumer has made a clear statement indicating so, each party must then adhere to their obligations which is what the point rests upon.

Sorry but I don't think you can base a debating point on the use of a word that specifically isn't used, if the regs had meant returned or delivered they wouldn't say sent back, it's a very specific term.

The UK regs, the EU Directive and government backed advice all support the trader refunding within 14 days of the trader's receipt of the goods, evidence of the goods having been sent back or otherwise from the time at which the consumer made notice of their intention to cancel the contract. 

There is no mention of both parties being put back to where they were, I'm not sure where this idea comes from and in the majority of instances the trader will not be as they've suffered costs which they can't recover (such as the outward delivery). 

Ath_Wat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Sorry - meant to make this point earlier but forgot.

Where does it say in the legislation that the returned goods must have been received by the trader for a refund to be due?  All I can see that is necessary for a refund to be paid is that the consumer clearly communicates to the trader that they are cancelling the contract and that they can provide evidence of sending the goods back.  Where does it say that receipt by the trader is necessary?

Cancellation of a contract requires both parties to be put back where they were.  If the goods have not been returned the contract is not cancelled.  Just informing of your intention to cancel is not cancelling it.

I don't know where this is written, but it will be written somewhere.  The piece you are hanging your hat on is clear in that it relates ONLY to timings.

You cannot talk about law by taking one clause out of context.  I've told you this enough times, if you persist in believing you can, that is your problem,.  Take it to court if you like.  See how you get on.

The contract is cancelled once the consumer has made a clear statement indicating so, each party must then adhere to their obligations which is what the point rests upon.

Sorry but I don't think you can base a debating point on the use of a word that specifically isn't used, if the regs had meant returned or delivered they wouldn't say sent back, it's a very specific term.

The UK regs, the EU Directive and government backed advice all support the trader refunding within 14 days of the trader's receipt of the goods, evidence of the goods having been sent back or otherwise from the time at which the consumer made notice of their intention to cancel the contract. 

There is no mention of both parties being put back to where they were, I'm not sure where this idea comes from and in the majority of instances the trader will not be as they've suffered costs which they can't recover (such as the outward delivery). 

OK.  One more time.

Law is a body of knowledge formed by multiple statutes and court decisions.

You can't go into a court having isolated a few words that you believe fit your case and maintaining that those must be given weight over everything else.  That is not how it works.

If courts routinely order suppliers to refund people who have not successfully returned goods, there will be multiple cases proving that. Are there?