Returning goods purchased online - return delivery costs

gokhart

Hi forumites,
I purchased an item online from a UK seller (part of a US company). Decided I didn’t like it, so returned it shortly afterwards. They offer a no-quibble 30 day refund, minus postage. I didn’t wait that long, just 7 or 8 days. I used the original box and packaging.

Now to return it, I had to use their online ‘returns portal’ – no other option was provided, this was the only way in fact to see the return address! This generated a Yodel label, and I took it to the closest Collect+ point. So far, pretty much as you’d expect.

I received my refund a week or so afterwards, but have noticed £8 has been deducted! I contacted them about this, saying that no postage fees were set out at any point in the returns process. I also (after generating the label in the returns portal) measured and weighed the box (2kg), and put this into Yodel, and found that postage would cost £3.91. It was going to a UK address (Bristol).

Most other online retailers provide a returns address (so you can choose which postal carrier to use) or communicate the postage charges (if any) upfront, if you choose to use their returns service. The same day, I returned some items to Tredz in Swansea, and their website made it very clear that £3 would be charged for using their returns service, for items up to 20kg.

My query is:
- am I obliged to return items using the seller’s specified carrier, or am I at liberty to use whichever postage option I wish (ie the cheapest)
- is the seller obliged to set out the return postage cost before processing the return? Had I known return shipping would have cost me £8, I may have reconsidered.

I took screenshots throughout the returns process, and saved copies of the returns policy as it was at the time (just in case they try to update it retrospectively!) I’ve also saved the Yodel label, which doesn’t state the postage cost anywhere. The seller has replied saying the £8 was the postage cost, but providing no evidence.

Grateful for your help - this is my first post on here!

Manxman_in_exile

Sort of depends on what grounds you returned them.

If you exercised your statutory right to cancel a distance contract within 14 days under Part 3 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) then you must pay the return costs UNLESS either (i) the seller agreed that they would pay them or (ii) they haven't made it clear beforehand that you must pay.

So if you exercised your statutory right to cancel and they hadn't told you that you must pay the return costs, they can't charge you for that return.

However, if you didn't make it clear to them that you were exercising your statutory right to cancel, they might argue that you were returning the goods under their own returns policy, in which case who pays the cost of returns depends entirely on what their T&Cs say.

In either case you have the practical difficulty of extracting your 8 quid form them...

(Top Tip  -  when returning a distance sale within 14 days I'd suggest that you tell the seller clearly that you are exercising your statutory right to cancel under the above linked regulations, unless the seller's own returns policy is more beneficial to you.  eg more than 14 days have passed but the seller's policy allows longer than 14 days)

tightauldgit

To answer your other question, I don't believe you are obliged to use any company's return service provided the item is returned. But it would be at your risk if the item doesn't arrive. If the company provides the label then provided you can show it's been posted then it's deemed returned. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

gokhart said:

Hi forumites,
I purchased an item online from a UK seller (part of a US company). Decided I didn’t like it, so returned it shortly afterwards. They offer a no-quibble 30 day refund, minus postage.

This sounds like their own policy, you'd have to check what they say about the right to cancel the contract to see whether they are offering your rights. 

If they are offering your rights then a lot of companies advise the consumer must pay for return. 

Regarding addresses the regs state:

(3) The address to which goods must be sent under paragraph (2)(a) is—

(a)any address specified by the trader for sending the goods back;

(b)if no address is specified for that purpose, any address specified by the trader for the consumer to contact the trader;

(c)if no address is specified for either of those purposes, any place of business of the trader.

They should provide a model cancellation form that includes their address. 

As above it may be that you've used their policy rather than cancelled your contract.

As the amount is small, other than complain to the company in the hope they refund the £8 (or some of it) there isn't really much more than can be done  

tightauldgit said:

But it would be at your risk if the item doesn't arrive. If the company provides the label then provided you can show it's been posted then it's deemed returned. 

What it this based on please? Do you have source?

CardinalWolsey

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

But it would be at your risk if the item doesn't arrive. If the company provides the label then provided you can show it's been posted then it's deemed returned. 

What it this based on please? Do you have source?

The courier acts as an agent for whoever contracted them. If you contract them for a return - i.e. you pay the courier for the return - then the goods remain at your risk until they have been proven to be delivered. If the retailer contracts the courier - such as providing a pre-printed or downloadable and printed returns label for a courier company, then the courier is acting as agent for the retailer. The courier's acceptance of the goods now passes liability over to the retailer, and as such the courier has received those goods on behalf of the retailer.

Effectively it is the opposite of the transfer of risk during delivery, where that risk stays with the retailer until the courier has delivered to the named recipient (as per the CRA).

tightauldgit

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer but passing of risk occurs when you either return the item to the seller or pass it to a courier acting on behalf of the seller. In that respect if the item goes missing from your own courier = your problem, if the item goes missing from their courier = their problem. 

They could of course still dispute that what you sent them was a bag of pebbles not a pair of trainers.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

CardinalWolsey said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

But it would be at your risk if the item doesn't arrive. If the company provides the label then provided you can show it's been posted then it's deemed returned. 

What it this based on please? Do you have source?

The courier acts as an agent for whoever contracted them. If you contract them for a return - i.e. you pay the courier for the return - then the goods remain at your risk until they have been proven to be delivered. If the retailer contracts the courier - such as providing a pre-printed or downloadable and printed returns label for a courier company, then the courier is acting as agent for the retailer. The courier's acceptance of the goods now passes liability over to the retailer, and as such the courier has received those goods on behalf of the retailer.

Effectively it is the opposite of the transfer of risk during delivery, where that risk stays with the retailer until the courier has delivered to the named recipient (as per the CRA).

tightauldgit said:

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer but passing of risk occurs when you either return the item to the seller or pass it to a courier acting on behalf of the seller. In that respect if the item goes missing from your own courier = your problem, if the item goes missing from their courier = their problem. 

They could of course still dispute that what you sent them was a bag of pebbles not a pair of trainers.

I understand what is being said, the question is what is it based on  

The guidance on the EU Consumer Rights Directive (from which the CCR is formed) states the Directive doesn't impose who bears the risk of return but it is for the laws of each country to determine. 

I understand who has a contract with the courier but I haven't seen anything that suggests that this implies who risk lies with. 

Whilst it may appear logical when it comes to refunds the trader must

(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.

(6) Otherwise, the time is the end of 14 days after the day on which the trader is informed of the consumer's decision to withdraw the offer or cancel the contract, in accordance with regulation [F132].

If the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back but they don't arrive after 14 days the trader has to refund any way. 

This idea the party who pays for the courier bears the risk is confidently stated on here, I'm not disagreeing with it, I'm just asking what legal basis it has to better understand how it relates to the reimbursement requirements. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

CardinalWolsey said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

But it would be at your risk if the item doesn't arrive. If the company provides the label then provided you can show it's been posted then it's deemed returned. 

What it this based on please? Do you have source?

The courier acts as an agent for whoever contracted them. If you contract them for a return - i.e. you pay the courier for the return - then the goods remain at your risk until they have been proven to be delivered. If the retailer contracts the courier - such as providing a pre-printed or downloadable and printed returns label for a courier company, then the courier is acting as agent for the retailer. The courier's acceptance of the goods now passes liability over to the retailer, and as such the courier has received those goods on behalf of the retailer.

Effectively it is the opposite of the transfer of risk during delivery, where that risk stays with the retailer until the courier has delivered to the named recipient (as per the CRA).

tightauldgit said:

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer but passing of risk occurs when you either return the item to the seller or pass it to a courier acting on behalf of the seller. In that respect if the item goes missing from your own courier = your problem, if the item goes missing from their courier = their problem. 

They could of course still dispute that what you sent them was a bag of pebbles not a pair of trainers.

I understand what is being said, the question is what is it based on  

The guidance on the EU Consumer Rights Directive (from which the CCR is formed) states the Directive doesn't impose who bears the risk of return but it is for the laws of each country to determine. 

I understand who has a contract with the courier but I haven't seen anything that suggests that this implies who risk lies with. 

Whilst it may appear logical when it comes to refunds the trader must

(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.

(6) Otherwise, the time is the end of 14 days after the day on which the trader is informed of the consumer's decision to withdraw the offer or cancel the contract, in accordance with regulation [F132].

If the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back but they don't arrive after 14 days the trader has to refund any way. 

This idea the party who pays for the courier bears the risk is confidently stated on here, I'm not disagreeing with it, I'm just asking what legal basis it has to better understand how it relates to the reimbursement requirements. 

It's based on transfer of risk in English law (and I presume the other UK countries have the same idea) - risk transfers from A to B at the point that the goods are in the physical possession of B, or an agent acting on their behalf such as a courier. It's the same principle in reverse when they deliver to you - until you actually have the item it's their responsibility but if you send a courier to pick it up then it transfers at the point the courier has it in their possession. 

Whether it's explicitly stated in consumer rights statute I'm not sure (it may well not be) but that's the underlying principle of law that would be applied to any dispute unless there's something to the contrary in the statute?

ETA: The bit you quote about 14 days relates to the timing of any refund due, not to the actual refund being due or not. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

It's based on transfer of risk in English law (and I presume the other UK countries have the same idea) - risk transfers from A to B at the point that the goods are in the physical possession of B, or an agent acting on their behalf such as a courier. It's the same principle in reverse when they deliver to you - until you actually have the item it's their responsibility but if you send a courier to pick it up then it transfers at the point the courier has it in their possession. 

Whether it's explicitly stated in consumer rights statute I'm not sure (it may well not be) but that's the underlying principle of law that would be applied to any dispute unless there's something to the contrary in the statute?

It's not state in the consumer regs regarding returns (passing of risk is defined for the trader delivering goods), I don't doubt "It's based on transfer of risk in English law" but can you provide a source?  

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

It's based on transfer of risk in English law (and I presume the other UK countries have the same idea) - risk transfers from A to B at the point that the goods are in the physical possession of B, or an agent acting on their behalf such as a courier. It's the same principle in reverse when they deliver to you - until you actually have the item it's their responsibility but if you send a courier to pick it up then it transfers at the point the courier has it in their possession. 

Whether it's explicitly stated in consumer rights statute I'm not sure (it may well not be) but that's the underlying principle of law that would be applied to any dispute unless there's something to the contrary in the statute?

It's not state in the consumer regs regarding returns (passing of risk is defined for the trader delivering goods), I don't doubt "It's based on transfer of risk in English law" but can you provide a source?  

I think you might be looking for something that doesn't exist. As I said, if there is a legal dispute between Party A and Party B between whether a parcel has arrived or not then in the absence of a statute saying otherwise then there is a well-established principle of English law that tells us when risk passes from A to B. If you wish to say that in this situation the principle is different then I'm open to hearing the argument but you'd have to show something that says that this is indeed a special case.

 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

It's based on transfer of risk in English law (and I presume the other UK countries have the same idea) - risk transfers from A to B at the point that the goods are in the physical possession of B, or an agent acting on their behalf such as a courier. It's the same principle in reverse when they deliver to you - until you actually have the item it's their responsibility but if you send a courier to pick it up then it transfers at the point the courier has it in their possession. 

Whether it's explicitly stated in consumer rights statute I'm not sure (it may well not be) but that's the underlying principle of law that would be applied to any dispute unless there's something to the contrary in the statute?

It's not state in the consumer regs regarding returns (passing of risk is defined for the trader delivering goods), I don't doubt "It's based on transfer of risk in English law" but can you provide a source?  

I think you might be looking for something that doesn't exist. As I said, if there is a legal dispute between Party A and Party B between whether a parcel has arrived or not then in the absence of a statute saying otherwise then there is a well-established principle of English law that tells us when risk passes from A to B. If you wish to say that in this situation the principle is different then I'm open to hearing the argument but you'd have to show something that says that this is indeed a special case.

 

I'm just looking for the source of the well established principle, it must be referenced somewhere  

Most Google results either refer to passing of risk under the CRA (which only applies to the trader on the way out to the consumer) or to the SOGA (of which the sections mentioning risk no longer apply to consumers purchasing goods due the introduction of the CRA).

I don't have anything to say otherwise, I just wouldn't like to tell someone the trader must refund within 14 days regardless without any caveat they may be responsible for risk where that is to be the case, but I can't include that caveat either as I don't know where to comes from. 

Basically it's a rainy day and I should be working but am procrastinating instead.