Refund Deduction

jon81uk

Clearly says on the website delivery is £7 if you spend under £85.
Delivery Details | Next Day Delivery Shipping Prices | Wickes

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If OP cancelled their contract I don't think there is anything that would permit the retailer to keep a portion of the money for a delivery fee due to the order now being under the free delivery amount. The only deductions permitted from the refund are "excessive handling" or retaining part of a delivery fee already paid if the cost for that service was above the cost of the basic service.

I do wonder if you can cancel your contract and not return the full order, I'm sure this come up years ago and a respected poster who doesn't visit these days said you could as the overall contract was made up of separate contracts for each item (or something along those lines). 

If you can cancel some of the goods under the CCRs then the difference they've kept is due, either way a company likes Wickes will probably refund out of goodwill if OP emails the CEO email address stating it wasn't clear they would do this. 

Grumpy_chap

In this case, the delivery charge being due seems reasonable.  Otherwise the process of order more than you want (to get free delivery) and then return a bit of the order would be open to abuse.

It is not uncommon when ordering on line for there to be a delivery charge and then an order value threshold above which delivery if free.
That threshold is because the vendor has assessed the delivery costs can be covered once a certain amount is spent, but not if the order is of lower value.
It would be an abuse of that "free delivery above a threshold" process if the part of the order could then be returned, thus bringing the total below the free delivery eligibility but the retailer still had to give the free delivery.  If that could be done, people would just buy extra to get the free delivery then return the surplus.

The "free delivery above a threshold" is no different to a multi-buy "buy two, get one free" in the supermarket. 
If I only want one pack of biscuits, I can't buy two to get the free pack, then return the one extra pack I would not have purchased, but keep the first pack plus the free pack.  

5into13

@Grumpy_chap

I understand the reasoning - but it is not mentioned on the website. Plus, they should also advise customers that the delivery charge will be refunded if all the order is returned. Which makes little sense as the items have still been delivered.

However I've had an email from the manager of the local store in the last hour to say the charge will be refunded too.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

 is no different to a multi-buy "buy two, get one free" in the supermarket. 
If I only want one pack of biscuits, I can't buy two to get the free pack, then return the one extra pack I would not have purchased, but keep the first pack plus the free pack.  

It's interesting though as if one of the two were "faulty" the consumer has the right to choose whether to reject all of the goods or just those that do not conform and if the items were different and the one charged was faulty with the other being recorded as £0.00 I don't see how the retailer could avoid refunding the paid item and leaving the consumer with the other for free.

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

 is no different to a multi-buy "buy two, get one free" in the supermarket. 
If I only want one pack of biscuits, I can't buy two to get the free pack, then return the one extra pack I would not have purchased, but keep the first pack plus the free pack.  

It's interesting though as if one of the two were "faulty" the consumer has the right to choose whether to reject all of the goods or just those that do not conform and if the items were different and the one charged was faulty with the other being recorded as £0.00 I don't see how the retailer could avoid refunding the paid item and leaving the consumer with the other for free.

Most retailers will not discount one item down to 0, instead reduce both items equally. Or apply it as a line discount separately (ie 3 x full price, then a separate line for the discount). If you had one item as free, it would cause issues where they are on different SKU’s - for example 3 for 2 T-shirts where a blue T-shirt was bought, charged at £0 and then was faulty. In that case should the customer get a refund? If so how much 66%? 100%?

Our tills always used to do the former so if you returned one as faulty the refund would be 0.66 x the base price. But can see an argument for a full refund of one, but think a 66% refund is a defensible middle ground. 

Be an interesting case to see which ways courts would lean. Maybe Apple will start with 3 for 2 phones so we can test it out! 

5into13

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

 is no different to a multi-buy "buy two, get one free" in the supermarket. 
If I only want one pack of biscuits, I can't buy two to get the free pack, then return the one extra pack I would not have purchased, but keep the first pack plus the free pack.  

It's interesting though as if one of the two were "faulty" the consumer has the right to choose whether to reject all of the goods or just those that do not conform and if the items were different and the one charged was faulty with the other being recorded as £0.00 I don't see how the retailer could avoid refunding the paid item and leaving the consumer with the other for free.

Most retailers will not discount one item down to 0, instead reduce both items equally. Or apply it as a line discount separately (ie 3 x full price, then a separate line for the discount). If you had one item as free, it would cause issues where they are on different SKU’s - for example 3 for 2 T-shirts where a blue T-shirt was bought, charged at £0 and then was faulty. In that case should the customer get a refund? If so how much 66%? 100%?

Our tills always used to do the former so if you returned one as faulty the refund would be 0.66 x the base price. But can see an argument for a full refund of one, but think a 66% refund is a defensible middle ground. 

Be an interesting case to see which ways courts would lean. Maybe Apple will start with 3 for 2 phones so we can test it out! 

I do my grocery shopping online. If I bought items on 3 for 2 and one item is out of stock, they would adjust the cost to reflect what it would have been if all 3 items are available.

born_again

5into13 said:

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

 is no different to a multi-buy "buy two, get one free" in the supermarket. 
If I only want one pack of biscuits, I can't buy two to get the free pack, then return the one extra pack I would not have purchased, but keep the first pack plus the free pack.  

It's interesting though as if one of the two were "faulty" the consumer has the right to choose whether to reject all of the goods or just those that do not conform and if the items were different and the one charged was faulty with the other being recorded as £0.00 I don't see how the retailer could avoid refunding the paid item and leaving the consumer with the other for free.

Most retailers will not discount one item down to 0, instead reduce both items equally. Or apply it as a line discount separately (ie 3 x full price, then a separate line for the discount). If you had one item as free, it would cause issues where they are on different SKU’s - for example 3 for 2 T-shirts where a blue T-shirt was bought, charged at £0 and then was faulty. In that case should the customer get a refund? If so how much 66%? 100%?

Our tills always used to do the former so if you returned one as faulty the refund would be 0.66 x the base price. But can see an argument for a full refund of one, but think a 66% refund is a defensible middle ground. 

Be an interesting case to see which ways courts would lean. Maybe Apple will start with 3 for 2 phones so we can test it out! 

I do my grocery shopping online. If I bought items on 3 for 2 and one item is out of stock, they would adjust the cost to reflect what it would have been if all 3 items are available.

So that would be for 2 items X & 3 items (given one is free) X again. So nothing to adjust.

5into13

born_again said:

5into13 said:

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

 is no different to a multi-buy "buy two, get one free" in the supermarket. 
If I only want one pack of biscuits, I can't buy two to get the free pack, then return the one extra pack I would not have purchased, but keep the first pack plus the free pack.  

It's interesting though as if one of the two were "faulty" the consumer has the right to choose whether to reject all of the goods or just those that do not conform and if the items were different and the one charged was faulty with the other being recorded as £0.00 I don't see how the retailer could avoid refunding the paid item and leaving the consumer with the other for free.

Most retailers will not discount one item down to 0, instead reduce both items equally. Or apply it as a line discount separately (ie 3 x full price, then a separate line for the discount). If you had one item as free, it would cause issues where they are on different SKU’s - for example 3 for 2 T-shirts where a blue T-shirt was bought, charged at £0 and then was faulty. In that case should the customer get a refund? If so how much 66%? 100%?

Our tills always used to do the former so if you returned one as faulty the refund would be 0.66 x the base price. But can see an argument for a full refund of one, but think a 66% refund is a defensible middle ground. 

Be an interesting case to see which ways courts would lean. Maybe Apple will start with 3 for 2 phones so we can test it out! 

I do my grocery shopping online. If I bought items on 3 for 2 and one item is out of stock, they would adjust the cost to reflect what it would have been if all 3 items are available.

So that would be for 2 items X & 3 items (given one is free) X again. So nothing to adjust.

If one item is unavailable, I would get the two items for 2/3 of the price.