Item lost by Royal Mail, seller only paying out £150 out of the items £700 value

born_again

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
Odds on would be rejected with no proof of return.

But who is the retailer?
Might be something that is covered in either T/C or returns policy.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst small claims is the ultimate option in a situation like this I'm not sure what legal reasoning would be put forward for risk during return being passed upon the parcel successfully being handed over the courier. 

 in the absence of any other contractual term 

OP earlier if they were informed at any point the return would be at their risk 

https://ruezone.com/pages/returns-information-refurbished-unlocked-smartphones

If you receive an item that’s faulty, we’ll cover the cost of the return postage. For everything else, you’ll need to pay the return postage. We recommend using a tracked service for this as we cannot be held responsible for returned items lost or damaged in the post.

It could be argued that last bolded part only relates to the sentence which it follows (i.e for everything else) or even if it was argued that sentence relates to the whole paragraph it could perhaps be argued it's presentation is misleading. 

I don't know if there is a legal principle that assumes a contract term would work in reverse?

As I've said on this topic before I would hope the risk lies with the trader in a situation like this but can't say such as I can't back it up with anything  

@born_again as above, not sure which way the bank would read that? 

born_again

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

 Remember chargebacks do not cover consumer rights. So in this case as OP returned phone, no matter if it was via retailer printed return, or self paid for return. The regs are just looking at has it been received by retailer. As OP can't prove this, I would expect retailer to say that, they have not received it & can prove it was lost.

So it falls outside of the usual. Retailer printed return slip, that proof of posting = it is deemed as received.

As previous post needs people to know who this is & be able to view their T/C & returns policy to see if they have the £150, or pay yourself for more cover.👍

ArbitraryRandom

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst small claims is the ultimate option in a situation like this I'm not sure what legal reasoning would be put forward for risk during return being passed upon the parcel successfully being handed over the courier. 

 in the absence of any other contractual term 

OP earlier if they were informed at any point the return would be at their risk 

https://ruezone.com/pages/returns-information-refurbished-unlocked-smartphones

If you receive an item that’s faulty, we’ll cover the cost of the return postage. For everything else, you’ll need to pay the return postage. We recommend using a tracked service for this as we cannot be held responsible for returned items lost or damaged in the post.

I think it would still come down to if the OP was given the option to upgrade/arrange the return themselves (at the trader's cost) or was just given a label to use... 

I don't know if there is a legal principle that assumes a contract term would work in reverse?

I'm not suggesting the contractual terms would work that way (the contract was ended as soon as the Op rejected the goods) - I'm saying in the absence of any specific legislation or contractual terms then what would apply would likely be the clapham bus test (especially in small claims where the judge has a lot of discretion) - and the prior terms are indicative as to what a reasonable person might expect... or at least that would be the argument I'd recommend the OP use if it gets that far  

Adxmmm

ArbitraryRandom said:

It's irrelevant, but did they offer you an upgraded label or make it clear that the issuance was only to £150 (at your risk) when they provided the label?

I'm just curious - I wouldn't get into a dialogue with them about it at all; just ask them to confirm for the last time they are refusing to refund you and 1. report them to trading standards (won't change anything for you but it'll be noted somewhere on the system) and 2. do a charge back. 

Nope, they had not. I initially sent them this email and received no reply.



I then called them the next day and described the issue to them, to which they told me to return the phone with the label that they were going to email me. No mention of insurance or anything.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

 Remember chargebacks do not cover consumer rights. So in this case as OP returned phone, no matter if it was via retailer printed return, or self paid for return. The regs are just looking at has it been received by retailer. As OP can't prove this, I would expect retailer to say that, they have not received it & can prove it was lost.

Thanks @born_again, that's what I thought.  

born_again said:

So it falls outside of the usual. Retailer printed return slip, that proof of posting = it is deemed as received.

I assume you mean if the retailer arranges the return and has it collected or such and the buyer doesn't really have anything to do with return process then the bank would deem it "delivered" to the retailer when handed over?

ArbitraryRandom said:
- I'm saying in the absence of any specific legislation or contractual terms then what would apply would likely be the clapham bus test (especially in small claims where the judge has a lot of discretion) - and the prior terms are indicative as to what a reasonable person might expect... or at least that would be the argument I'd recommend the OP use if it gets that far  

Thanks, always interesting to learn something new  

I would assume a reasonable person would assume a label given by the retailer would cover the value of the goods.

I don't think these companies help themselves by giving out labels that don't cover the value, I'm sure there was a similar thread with Music Magpie, although that was a trade in rather than return. For what it must cost a large business to provide an SD label, particularly for "faulty" returns, it is pretty poor in general. 

They seem to be placing themselves in a worse position considering the above as if they left the customer to it then I guess the argument would go the other way and assume a reasonable person would buy a service that covers the value.

ArbitraryRandom

They probably weigh the balance of number of items that actually go missing once scanned by the RM against the cost of a service that offers higher insurance (basically self insure) - especially given if it's a faulty return it's already more than likely a write off or will need to go for refurb to recoup less than the 'new' selling price (the trader hasn't lost a £700 item - they've lost whatever the refurbed resale price would be minus the costs of refurbishing it). 

Okell

Surely the loss here is the trader's responsibility and not the OP's?

The OP has reported the item as faulty and the trader wants to examine it.  The trader has provided a pre-paid returns label.  The trader knows (1) the value of the item and they also know (2) how much cover is provided by their chosen method of return.  If the item goes missing it must be the trader's problem to sort out with RM and not the OP's.  The trader chose both the method of return and the level of cover - not the OP.

If the trader has chosen to offer a method of return that provides limited protection that they must know will not cover the value of the goods then that's their choice - and their risk.

Okell

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst small claims is the ultimate option in a situation like this I'm not sure what legal reasoning would be put forward for risk during return being passed upon the parcel successfully being handed over the courier. 

Thankfully - in my experience at least, the judges at small claims have quite a lot of discretion and tend to be fairly reasonable (due to the nature of small claims being designed to avoid needing legal representation)... 

I think you are probably correct.

I suspect that many judges at small claims are likely to be more sympathetic towards the "weaker" consumer as opposed to the "more powerful" trader - no matter how big or how small that trader is.

I also think that some contributors to these sort of threads take an overly legalistic approach to the problem whereas a judge at small claims is more likely to ask the simpler and more reasonable question of "What's a fair outcome here?"  As you say, the whole point of the small claims process is to assist unrepresented claimants with little or no knowledge of the technicalities of the law to get a fair result.

Unless a consumer claimant comes across as shifty, evasive, unreliable, unreasonable or otherwise "dishonest", I suspect they'll always have a better than evens chance of winning a case against a trader - unless that trader has behaved absolutely impeccably throughout.

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Whilst small claims is the ultimate option in a situation like this I'm not sure what legal reasoning would be put forward for risk during return being passed upon the parcel successfully being handed over the courier. 

 in the absence of any other contractual term 

OP earlier if they were informed at any point the return would be at their risk 

https://ruezone.com/pages/returns-information-refurbished-unlocked-smartphones

If you receive an item that’s faulty, we’ll cover the cost of the return postage. For everything else, you’ll need to pay the return postage. We recommend using a tracked service for this as we cannot be held responsible for returned items lost or damaged in the post.

It could be argued that last bolded part only relates to the sentence which it follows (i.e for everything else) ...

I would agree with your reading.