Courier returned my package to me and now I can't get my money back

Exodi

Alderbank said:

I'm sorry you think that is a very anti-business view   . It's not my personal view though, it's just what the law says.

The precise wording of s34  of the Act is:

(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—

(6)(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.

Sorry I edited that out (calling you anti-business) a few minutes before your post since it was an unfair thing to say, appreciate the position.

I stand corrected, though it's controversial to say the least - the evidence of the goods being sent back would also confirm the goods are with the OP. I wouldn't want to be the business receiving that email!

Alderbank

No problem.

There has been discussion before on this board about the exact choice of words on this point by the legislators back in 2013. It is notable that it doesn't say 'evidence that the trader has received the goods back' but just 'having sent the goods back'.

Evidence of goods being sent back would be the likes of a certificate of posting or a receipt from a carrier that they had picked the goods up for carriage, so would confirm the goods are not with the OP.

Exodi

Alderbank said:

No problem.

There has been discussion before on this board about the exact choice of words on this point by the legislators back in 2013. It is notable that it doesn't say 'evidence that the trader has received the goods back' but just 'having sent the goods back'.

Evidence of goods being sent back would be the likes of a certificate of posting or a receipt from a carrier that they had picked the goods up for carriage, so would confirm the goods are not with the OP.

I expect it may have been to prevent malicious traders from refusing to accept delivery of returns, putting unreasonable requirements on delivery, etc.

The OP's situation is quite unique as I still feel blame lies with the courier and not the merchant. Despite POP 'in principle' implying the goods are not with the OP, obviously in this case we know they are. And the POP would have a tracking number which confirms that. 

I'm not sure I'd have the guts to request a refund under these circumstances, but that's only my view. But I learned something new to that, thanks!

Okell

Alderbank said:

No problem.

There has been discussion before on this board about the exact choice of words on this point by the legislators back in 2013. It is notable that it doesn't say 'evidence that the trader has received the goods back' but just 'having sent the goods back'.

Evidence of goods being sent back would be the likes of a certificate of posting or a receipt from a carrier that they had picked the goods up for carriage, so would confirm the goods are not with the OP.

You have a good memory....   

My initial thought was "I wonder if the OP clearly informed the seller that they were cancelling under s29 of the CRA?".

I suspect they probably didn't...