Retail online website threatens to remove customers

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

Or maybe it was merely an initial warning that if they carry on returning too much stuff they'll later be barred.

That's what I thought they meant, which would be the bit I don't agree with  

I disagree with your view point as well.
No rights have been eroded, as the person can return the items. All the letter is saying is that if you do return what they consider too much then they might not engage in further contracts. You don't have any rights for a contract that hasn't been made.

I didn't say any rights have been eroded I said that any misleading action that may alter the transactional decision of the consumer is classed as a breach of the CPRs.

Sending a letter stating you have too many returns but we aren't going to deny you custom just yet is in complete contradiction to the right to return every single item you purchase at a distance (with the usual caveats) and may lead to the consumer not exercising their right to cancel the contract (i.e altering their transactional decision) through "fear" (for want of a better word) of not being able to shop at their preferred retailer. 

As I said I find it simple, you do business together or you don't do business together, what you don't do is imply business can be done as long as the consumer agrees to limit exercising their right to cancel to unknown limit imposed by the business. 

HillStreetBlues said:You don't have any rights for a contract that hasn't been made.

Just to be clear on this point, if the OP, or someone in their position, continued to shop with this retailer but didn't exercise their right to cancel through "fear" of not being able to buy from them again, then regretted that choice and the retailer's actions were deemed a breach of the CPRs they would be entitled to redress.

The CPRs cover a lot, including the consumer's decision not to act. 

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sending a letter stating you have too many returns but we aren't going to deny you custom just yet is in complete contradiction to the right to return every single item you purchase at a distance (with the usual caveats) and may lead to the consumer not exercising their right to cancel the contract (i.e altering their transactional decision) through "fear" (for want of a better word) of not being able to shop at their preferred retailer. 

I just don't see it that way at all. If the letter stated we will continue your custom if you agree to limit your returns, then  yes  then I  would totally agree.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:You don't have any rights for a contract that hasn't been made.

Just to be clear on this point, if the OP, or someone in their position, continued to shop with this retailer but didn't exercise their right to cancel through "fear" of not being able to buy from them again, then regretted that choice and the retailer's actions were deemed a breach of the CPRs they would be entitled to redress.

The CPRs cover a lot, including the consumer's decision not to act. 

 But no one has stated that goods can't be sent back,  but if it was any action would be on the current contract, not a possible future one.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sending a letter stating you have too many returns but we aren't going to deny you custom just yet is in complete contradiction to the right to return every single item you purchase at a distance (with the usual caveats) and may lead to the consumer not exercising their right to cancel the contract (i.e altering their transactional decision) through "fear" (for want of a better word) of not being able to shop at their preferred retailer. 

I just don't see it that way at all. If the letter stated we will continue your custom if you agree to limit your returns, then  yes  then I  would totally agree.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:You don't have any rights for a contract that hasn't been made.

Just to be clear on this point, if the OP, or someone in their position, continued to shop with this retailer but didn't exercise their right to cancel through "fear" of not being able to buy from them again, then regretted that choice and the retailer's actions were deemed a breach of the CPRs they would be entitled to redress.

The CPRs cover a lot, including the consumer's decision not to act. 

 But no one has stated that goods can't be sent back,  but if it was any action would be on the current contract, not a possible future one.

It doesn't have to specifically state such, again misleading actions that alter the transaction decision of the consumer are a breach of the CPRs. 

If the consumer carried on doing business but failed to exercise a contractual right due to the wording of the letter and it was deemed the wording of the letter was a misleading action the consumer would have right to redress. 

The letter serves one purpose, to retain the customer but make them think twice about sending stuff back, which isn't right. 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sending a letter stating you have too many returns but we aren't going to deny you custom just yet is in complete contradiction to the right to return every single item you purchase at a distance (with the usual caveats) and may lead to the consumer not exercising their right to cancel the contract (i.e altering their transactional decision) through "fear" (for want of a better word) of not being able to shop at their preferred retailer. 

I just don't see it that way at all. If the letter stated we will continue your custom if you agree to limit your returns, then  yes  then I  would totally agree.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:You don't have any rights for a contract that hasn't been made.

Just to be clear on this point, if the OP, or someone in their position, continued to shop with this retailer but didn't exercise their right to cancel through "fear" of not being able to buy from them again, then regretted that choice and the retailer's actions were deemed a breach of the CPRs they would be entitled to redress.

The CPRs cover a lot, including the consumer's decision not to act. 

 But no one has stated that goods can't be sent back,  but if it was any action would be on the current contract, not a possible future one.

It doesn't have to specifically state such, again misleading actions that alter the transaction decision of the consumer are a breach of the CPRs. 

If the consumer carried on doing business but failed to exercise a contractual right due to the wording of the letter and it was deemed the wording of the letter was a misleading action the consumer would have right to redress. 

The letter serves one purpose, to retain the customer but make them think twice about sending stuff back, which isn't right. 

It falls down to the wording of this letter. I would also think that most people would make a difference between a small seller on Etsy asking people to be careful with what they order as returns can eat away into small profit margins and a gigantic corporation doing it. Without seeing the letter, we’re basically arguing semantics without knowing what semantics were arguing over. 

Clear difference between ‘hey you’re ordering loads of stuff - in case you didn’t know for each item you return there’s a cost of £X that we absorb - please help us keep prices competitive by only ordering what you need and using our size guides’ vs ‘if you keep returning all of our stuff we will cut you off’. One is raising awareness of hidden costs a customer might not be aware off and one is threatening to withdraw selling if a consumer exercises their rights. 

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sending a letter stating you have too many returns but we aren't going to deny you custom just yet is in complete contradiction to the right to return every single item you purchase at a distance (with the usual caveats) and may lead to the consumer not exercising their right to cancel the contract (i.e altering their transactional decision) through "fear" (for want of a better word) of not being able to shop at their preferred retailer. 

I just don't see it that way at all. If the letter stated we will continue your custom if you agree to limit your returns, then  yes  then I  would totally agree.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:You don't have any rights for a contract that hasn't been made.

Just to be clear on this point, if the OP, or someone in their position, continued to shop with this retailer but didn't exercise their right to cancel through "fear" of not being able to buy from them again, then regretted that choice and the retailer's actions were deemed a breach of the CPRs they would be entitled to redress.

The CPRs cover a lot, including the consumer's decision not to act. 

 But no one has stated that goods can't be sent back,  but if it was any action would be on the current contract, not a possible future one.

It doesn't have to specifically state such, again misleading actions that alter the transaction decision of the consumer are a breach of the CPRs. 

If the consumer carried on doing business but failed to exercise a contractual right due to the wording of the letter and it was deemed the wording of the letter was a misleading action the consumer would have right to redress. 

The letter serves one purpose, to retain the customer but make them think twice about sending stuff back, which isn't right. 

The CPR only applies to the current contract, the letter doesn't state any consequences to that order. The  person can sent it back or not.
The person might be deterred from sending items back, but that would only be if that person wanted another contract. This would be the person's choice (the person's rights still exist but they  could choose not to enforce them)..

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HillStreetBlues said:

The CPR only applies to the current contract, the letter doesn't state any consequences to that order. The  person can sent it back or not.

Nope the CPRs apply to everything from the decision to order in the first place right through to the lifetime of the product.  

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The CPR only applies to the current contract, the letter doesn't state any consequences to that order. The  person can sent it back or not.

Nope the CPRs apply to everything from the decision to order in the first place right through to the lifetime of the product.  

That is the contract

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The CPR only applies to the current contract, the letter doesn't state any consequences to that order. The  person can sent it back or not.

Nope the CPRs apply to everything from the decision to order in the first place right through to the lifetime of the product.  

That is the contract

With that perspective so is the letter. 

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The CPR only applies to the current contract, the letter doesn't state any consequences to that order. The  person can sent it back or not.

Nope the CPRs apply to everything from the decision to order in the first place right through to the lifetime of the product.  

That is the contract

With that perspective so is the letter. 

A letter on it's own isn't a contract as there needs to be an acceptance. The person can reply to the letter stating " I will continue to return as many items as I see fit while it is cover by CPR".
You can be given a time limit to raise any objections, after that it can be deemed as accepted.

Exodi

This style of thread is becoming increasingly common.

I think the public is totally ignorant to the sheer scale and cost of return logistics.

The OP's attitude is a testament of this (who I expect will not be returning to the thread, as every response was not of resounding approval as they had expected).

Hudson8949 said:

I ordered more than one footwear item to try them on. With the intention of keeping one pair.  Shoes are tricky, especially trainers and special events.

Hudson8949 said:
Don;t you do that?

No, I can't say I can relate to anything you've said about returns habits.

I order size 10 shoes, size M shirts, size 32L trousers. I can't say I have a regular calamity of clothes not fitting. If (and I'm speaking hypothetically, because I can't remember the last time this happened), I ordered a pair of shoes and they came up very small and did not fit, then I would return them and go a size up.

The difference is, with me there is a chance I may need to return an item but on most occasions I will not. With you, a return will be needed every single time because you are ordering items in every size with a return guaranteed. You don't even need to tell me you only shop at retailers that offer free returns as that much will be obvious.

Amazon only allows this practice to retain their position as the market leader, and in the case of FBA, the merchant will brunt the cost. They are sanctimonious on consumer rights as you can expect, but don't mistake their core ambition as anything other than profit.