Returned items lost by Royal Mail

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

I think for the OP, all this might be a bit moot as they paid with Paypal Credit.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Cancellation, Return of Goods

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

However for non credit payments, If anyone has a login to Practical Law UK, it seems the answer is there waiting to be seen.

Genuine question because it's beyond my understanding, is the OP one of the below?

(1)This section applies where any agreement or transaction relating to goods, being—

(a)a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, a consumer hire agreement, or a linked transaction to which the debtor or hirer under any regulated agreement is a party, or

(b)a linked transaction to which a relative of the debtor or hirer under any regulated agreement is a party,

I saw the Practical Law question, sadly no login here, would be interesting to see what it says and who wrote the answer. 

Edit to add a a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement appears to simply be a case of goods purchased on credit but the cancellation is referring to cancellation of the credit agreement with the finance company rather than the contract with the retailer. 

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

"Sent back" does not mean the same as "sent".  Once more your predilection for partially quoting everything is letting you down.

As for "using the seller's own label" that's not a prepaid label. It's just a convenient form of printing off their address.  That has no bearing on it at all.

Why is (5)(b) there then?  Assuming that Parliamentary draftsmen only draft sections which add to the legislation, what purpose does it serve?  Are you persisting in saying that the consumer supplies "evidence of having sent the goods back" actually means "evidence of the goods having been sent back and delivered to the trader"?

If that's what it means, what does it add over and above (5)(a) which says: "[14 days after -] the day on which the trader receives the goods back,... "

You view makes no sense.  It would render (5)(b) wholly redundant, wouldn't it?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

"Sent back" does not mean the same as "sent".  

No indeed it doesn't, something we can agree upon   Sent means sent, as in anywhere, sent back means sent back, as in to the place from which it came, but that still doesn't attach itself to the concept of being delivered. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

powerful_Rogue said:

I think for the OP, all this might be a bit moot as they paid with Paypal Credit.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Cancellation, Return of Goods

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

But insofar as s34(5)(b) is incompatible with the 1974 Act, won't the 2013 Regulations in effect override anything in the 1974 Act?

powerful_Rogue said:

I think for the OP, all this might be a bit moot as they paid with Paypal Credit.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Cancellation, Return of Goods

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

However for non credit payments, If anyone has a login to Practical Law UK, it seems the answer is there waiting to be seen.

Well do you have a login?  Do you know the answer, because I'd love to know it?

The first time I read S34(5)(b) I tought "That can't be right, surely?", but the more I think about it, the more I think it must mean exactly what it says.

[NB - what makes you think they know the answer?  I'd be surprised if there was a decided case of any import on the issue that @Ath_Wat doesn't know about.  It would be very disappointing for him that he couldn't find it...   I'm jesting of course     ]

Who knows which act would take precedence. Just thought i'd throw that spanner in the works!

I wish I did have a login, as like you i'd love to know the answer. I'm of mixed opinions, as it can't seem right that you can send a high value item back uninsured and then still expect a full refund even if it never arrives.

I'd be of the opinion that if the item isn't received, the diminshed value would be the full price, same as if arrived but was broken into a thousand pieces.

A similar opinion to these solicitors website

It is the duty of the buyer to take reasonable care of the goods if they choose to return them. They must not be damaged. If they are, the seller may have a claim. And if the buyer fails to return the goods and a refund has been issued, the seller has a claim.

It is indeed correct that the buyer has an obligation to send the goods back which is what this appears to be referring to, if the seller refunds before they are sent back and the buyer simply keeps the goods, bins them, or does anything really other than sending them back, the buyer has obviously failed in their obligations. 

Reference to damage appears to be along the line of diminished value. I don't buy your idea that the loss in transit is diminished value from the consumer's handling. 

Most noticeably I find it hard to give credit to an article that mixes advice regarding the right to reject goods for non-conformity and the right to cancel the contract under the same paragraph header and then goes on to state:

Finally, made-to-order goods and requests (those which are tailored to the buyer’s needs) are not refundable. But, bear in mind, if the goods are made from ‘off-the-peg’ options and combined to make a product, they may be returned. It is wise to check with the seller whether they consider the goods or product ‘made-to-order’. This is a grey area and the buyer may be at a disadvantage if it is not explicitly agreed what is a made-to-order item and what is not.

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

I think for the OP, all this might be a bit moot as they paid with Paypal Credit.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Cancellation, Return of Goods

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

However for non credit payments, If anyone has a login to Practical Law UK, it seems the answer is there waiting to be seen.

Genuine question because it's beyond my understanding, is the OP one of the below?

(1)This section applies where any agreement or transaction relating to goods, being—

(a)a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, a consumer hire agreement, or a linked transaction to which the debtor or hirer under any regulated agreement is a party, or

(b)a linked transaction to which a relative of the debtor or hirer under any regulated agreement is a party,

I saw the Practical Law question, sadly no login here, would be interesting to see what it says and who wrote the answer. 

Edit to add a a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement appears to simply be a case of goods purchased on credit but the cancellation is referring to cancellation of the credit agreement with the finance company rather than the contract with the retailer. 

Just looked at CCA '74 and you're right. This would not apply to the OP.

An agreement does not fall within subsection (1) if the credit is in fact provided in such a way as to leave the debtor free to use it as he chooses, even though certain uses would contravene that or any other agreement.

Manxman_in_exile

powerful_Rogue said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

powerful_Rogue said:

I think for the OP, all this might be a bit moot as they paid with Paypal Credit.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Cancellation, Return of Goods

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

But insofar as s34(5)(b) is incompatible with the 1974 Act, won't the 2013 Regulations in effect override anything in the 1974 Act?

powerful_Rogue said:

I think for the OP, all this might be a bit moot as they paid with Paypal Credit.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Cancellation, Return of Goods

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

However for non credit payments, If anyone has a login to Practical Law UK, it seems the answer is there waiting to be seen.

Well do you have a login?  Do you know the answer, because I'd love to know it?

The first time I read S34(5)(b) I tought "That can't be right, surely?", but the more I think about it, the more I think it must mean exactly what it says.

[NB - what makes you think they know the answer?  I'd be surprised if there was a decided case of any import on the issue that @Ath_Wat doesn't know about.  It would be very disappointing for him that he couldn't find it...   I'm jesting of course     ]

Who knows which act would take precedence. Just thought i'd throw that spanner in the works!

I wish I did have a login, as like you i'd love to know the answer. I'm of mixed opinions, as it can't seem right that you can send a high value item back uninsured and then still expect a full refund even if it never arrives.

I'd be of the opinion that if the item isn't received, the diminshed value would be the full price, same as if arrived but was broken into a thousand pieces.

A similar opinion to these solicitors website

It is the duty of the buyer to take reasonable care of the goods if they choose to return them. They must not be damaged. If they are, the seller may have a claim. And if the buyer fails to return the goods and a refund has been issued, the seller has a claim.

AIUI, if a later Act of Parliament is inconsistent with an earlier Act, the later Act effectively repeals the earlier Act insofar as it is inconsistent with that earlier one.

I agree that the wording of s34(5)(b) seems to be rather unfair to traders - and it was my first reaction upon reading it that what I had read couldn't possibly be right - but I now tend more to the lunatic's viewpoint that if traders don't want to lose out on high value items, they should arrange for their collection - which is what s34 suggests they do anyway.

The point about diminished value I hadn't considered - but I don't think you can treat an item lost by RM (for example) as having had its value diminished by the consumer's handling of it.

I understand the extract from the solicitors' website, but I'm wondering if the customer's duty to take reasonable care of the goods is discharged under the wording of s34(5)(b) once they've "sent" (whatever that means) the goods back to the trader.  I'm not convinced that in the context of (5)(b) that "sent back" necessarily means that the goods must be delivered.

Manxman_in_exile

Forgot to ask this earlier, but where does it say

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...

And what advice do you have for the OP?  Is it that they should just write off the £950?  Or take it to court and see how they "got on"?

Manxman_in_exile

Ath_Wat said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

"Sent back" does not mean the same as "sent".  Once more your predilection for partially quoting everything is letting you down.

As for "using the seller's own label" that's not a prepaid label. It's just a convenient form of printing off their address.  That has no bearing on it at all.

You might possibly have a very minor semantic point in saying that "sent" is not the same as "sent back" - although I'm struggling to understand precisely what the difference is or why it's significant here - it seems a bit desperate to me.

But let's say that for the sake of the discussion I accept that there is a difference, it still doesn't mean that "sent back" has the same meaning as "delivered".

If you were right it would mean that any phrase in the form of "I sent the goods back to the trader, but they never received them" (or any wording similar to that) would be both contradictory and meaningless.  And yet the meaning is perfectly clear to anyone that can understand English, and is precisely the sort of sentence seen many times here on this board.

The problem that I think you have with explaining the wording of (5)(b) is that if a refund is only payable if the goods are "sent back" to the trader (using your interpretation of "sent back" as meaning "delivered to" or "received by") then what is the point of the consumer supplying evidence under (5)(b) that the goods have been "sent back" (using your interpretation) as this situation* is already covered by (5)(a), so what is the point of supplying evidence?  What is the point of (5)(b) if it is in effect only saying the same as (5)(a)?

Of course, our legislators could have avoided all this lack of clarity by making a simple addition at the end of (5)(b) as I suggested earlier - but they didn't do that so we have to go on the wording they did use.  Or perhaps they could have substituted a different term like "returned" for "sent back" - but again, they didn't.  And I'm not sure "returned" would necessarily be any clearer.

* ie the goods being delivered to or received by the trader

Jenni_D

To put another spanner in the works, and switching the bolding:

Manxman_in_exile said:

That's not what s32 says:

"Exercise of the right to withdraw or cancel

32.—(1) To withdraw an offer to enter into a distance or off-premises contract, the consumer must inform the trader of the decision to withdraw it.

(2) To cancel a contract under regulation 29(1), the consumer must inform the trader of the decision to cancel it."

What do the T&Cs for this seller say as to when a contract is formed?

If the T&Cs say contract is formed when notification of despatch is provided, then the OP doesn't even have a contract to cancel; they have an offer that they're withdrawing.

Ignore the above - I was thinking of another thread.

Another question ... OP mentions printing off a label. What exactly was this label? Was it just a returns label with a code and the seller's address, and OP paid for the return? Or was it a pre-paid returns label and the seller paid for the return?

The distinction is important - if the OP paid for the return then the goods remain at the OP's risk until the seller receives them. If the seller paid for it then it becomes their risk as soon as the goods have been handed to their nominated returns agent. But even if the OP is liable for the risk, that does not in any way remove the OP's right for a full* refund - it simply means the seller would have to pursue a separate claim against the OP for the value of the goods.

* Subject to reasonable deductions for loss of value caused by the OP's "handling" of the goods.

Manxman_in_exile

Jenni_D said:

To put another spanner in the works, and switching the bolding:

Manxman_in_exile said:

That's not what s32 says:

"Exercise of the right to withdraw or cancel

32.—(1) To withdraw an offer to enter into a distance or off-premises contract, the consumer must inform the trader of the decision to withdraw it.

(2) To cancel a contract under regulation 29(1), the consumer must inform the trader of the decision to cancel it."

What do the T&Cs for this seller say as to when a contract is formed?

If the T&Cs say contract is formed when notification of despatch is provided, then the OP doesn't even have a contract to cancel; they have an offer that they're withdrawing.

Ignore the above - I was thinking of another thread.

Another question ... OP mentions printing off a label. What exactly was this label? Was it just a returns label with a code and the seller's address, and OP paid for the return? Or was it a pre-paid returns label and the seller paid for the return?

The distinction is important - if the OP paid for the return then the goods remain at the OP's risk until the seller receives them. If the seller paid for it then it becomes their risk as soon as the goods have been handed to their nominated returns agent. But even if the OP is liable for the risk, that does not in any way remove the OP's right for a full* refund - it simply means the seller would have to pursue a separate claim against the OP for the value of the goods.

* Subject to reasonable deductions for loss of value caused by the OP's "handling" of the goods.

Hmm.

AIUI it's a label the OP printed off that was supplied by the trader, but it's not a prepaid label.  The OP paid for the return.

Please remind me (because I'm beginning to lose track!) where this comes from:  "if the OP paid for the return then the goods remain at the OP's risk until the seller receives them".  (I'm not questioning it - I'm happy to accept that that would make sense - just a case of "show me"!)