Returned items lost by Royal Mail

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

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?

The process is bound by the legislation, or at least the interpretation of it with balance of probability thrown in, I’ve given my 3 sources, feel free to show the cases where the trader has won in such an instance  

powerful_Rogue

From Gov.uk

Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods are not faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They do not have to provide a reason.

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

Jenni_D

That's "guidance" to businesses, not the legislation itself. But I accept that a business could use that as evidence to support their case - what weight a judge would apply to it is anyone's guess.

powerful_Rogue

Guidance from the Governments interpretation of the legislation.

Jenni_D

True - but articles such as that tend not to be written by legally-qualified people, so can have statements that are contradictory to what the legislation itself says.

As I said - ultimately only a judge can decide. And unless it was a ruling from a higher court then it wouldn't set a precedent anyway.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

From Gov.uk

Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods are not faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They do not have to provide a reason.

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

That's very limited guidance, comprehensive government backed advice is available here:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales

powerful_Rogue

Another angle is the company has to refund, but as they have not received the physical goods back, they can deduct the £900 as that is the diminished value of the goods.

Ath_Wat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

From Gov.uk

Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods are not faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They do not have to provide a reason.

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

That's very limited guidance, comprehensive government backed advice is available here:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales

From that:

You must reimburse the consumer without undue delay and within 14 days from the day after they inform you of their decision. If the consumer is sending goods back to you, you need to reimburse them within 14 days of the day you get the goods back or, if earlier, 14 days from the day you receive proof from the consumer that they have sent the goods back. 


Not "posted them".  Sent them back.  Sending them back is a process that involves them actually getting to you at the end of it.  If they have just given them to a courier of their own choosing, they haven't sent them back until they get delivered.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

From Gov.uk

Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods are not faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They do not have to provide a reason.

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

That's very limited guidance, comprehensive government backed advice is available here:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales

From that:

You must reimburse the consumer without undue delay and within 14 days from the day after they inform you of their decision. If the consumer is sending goods back to you, you need to reimburse them within 14 days of the day you get the goods back or, if earlier, 14 days from the day you receive proof from the consumer that they have sent the goods back. 


Not "posted them".  Sent them back.  Sending them back is a process that involves them actually getting to you at the end of it.  If they have just given them to a courier of their own choosing, they haven't sent them back until they get delivered.

So you are saying 5(a) and 5(b) are the same thing then?

I’m not sure why you put “posted them” in quotes, do the quotes imply I used such a term? 

I also think the action of sending something is very obvious, although not on this forum of course.

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

From Gov.uk

Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods are not faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They do not have to provide a reason.

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

That's very limited guidance, comprehensive government backed advice is available here:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales

From that:

You must reimburse the consumer without undue delay and within 14 days from the day after they inform you of their decision. If the consumer is sending goods back to you, you need to reimburse them within 14 days of the day you get the goods back or, if earlier, 14 days from the day you receive proof from the consumer that they have sent the goods back. 


Not "posted them".  Sent them back.  Sending them back is a process that involves them actually getting to you at the end of it.  If they have just given them to a courier of their own choosing, they haven't sent them back until they get delivered.

Now you're just going round in ever decreasing circles and about to disappear!

On what ordinary and normal understanding of the English language does the word "sent" suddenly become equated with the word "delivered"?

The answer is never, because the two words have entirely different meanings - that's why they are two different words and not the same word.  Absolutely nobody with a proper understanding of the English language could possibly suggest with a straight face that something could only be said to have been "sent" after it had also been "delivered".  That argument would get laughed out of court as everybody would realise that you didn't know what you are talking about.  By that bizarre logic, anything that had ever been lost in transit could never be said to have been sent in the first place because it it could never be delivered.

And if this frankly odd argument of yours was correct, can you please explain what the purpose would be of s34(5)(b) in the first place?  If the people who drafted and passed this legislation understood your argument that the word "sent" really meant "delivered", what does (5)(b) add over and above (5)(a)?

(5)(a) says that the trader must refund within 14 days of return delivery to them, whereas (5)(b), according to your new argument, says that the trader must refund within 14 days of receiving proof from the consumer that the goods have been sent  (sorry - you mean "delivered", not "sent") delivered to the trader.  That's just silly.  It might make sense to you but I doubt that it makes sense to many more people.

Where does this courier of their own choosing come into it?  Is it mentioned in the Act?  In any case, I understood that the OP in this thread had sent it (sorry - I'm doing it again) started the process of it being delivered back to the trader by using the trader's own label and sending it (sorry again, but you know what I mean I hope) via RM.  What's wrong with that?

I did say earlier that I honestly don't know what the answer is - I can understand both arguments - and that I'd be more than happy for you to convince me that your view is the correct one.  I'm afraid your attempt to argue that "sent" actually means "delivered" falls far short of convincing me that you are right.