Retail online website threatens to remove customers

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
If your view that the letter is a breach of the CPRs what legal remedy could be taken?

Right to redress is detailed in the legislation

Effectively OP could claim any order they placed from now on they would have exercised their contractual right to cancel but didn't due to the actions of the trader.

Company is unlikely to agree, would likely take the opinion of a court who would decide whether the actions breached the legislation. Not worth doing but equally doesn't mean such behaviour should be considered acceptable.

Just to clarify again, if the company had wrote to OP and said "no more business for the two of us" that's fair enough as I see it.

One last thought on this topic aside from consumer rights, it's easy to blame people for their behaviour but there is a bit of reap what sow here, it was these companies that come along with these ideas of free and easy returns and hey isn't life convenient when we don't have to pay high rents & business rates and loads of staff you don't have to go to the shops it'll just turn up at your door in order to encourage people to buy from their online stores, not to mention a general idea of entitlement is good fuel for getting people to buy endless steams of rubbish they don't need, and shock horror, some people fall for it and use this convenience to it's fullest extent. 

The company would point out no rights have been breeched they would have honoured the 14 day return period.. The letter did not state or imply that a contract would be breached. The letter was a statement of fact, as that was our position.

For me to win a case the customer would have to believe that the company might breach the contract, leading them to take an action they wouldn't normally have taken. But there is no intention to breach the contract.

(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a)it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

(b)it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.

You'll note that it states does or is likely to, i.e may lead to in the future.

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Helps to understand what the CPRs encompass when debating why you think they don't apply  

Prices on supermarket shelves are factual and correct, CMA still makes reference to CPRs due the manner of presentation. 

user1977

But does the average consumer return the majority of clothing items they buy (and if they do, were they really expecting no repercussions)?

I expect many regulatory lawyers have already been all over this before us...

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HillStreetBlues said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
If your view that the letter is a breach of the CPRs what legal remedy could be taken?

Right to redress is detailed in the legislation

Effectively OP could claim any order they placed from now on they would have exercised their contractual right to cancel but didn't due to the actions of the trader.

Company is unlikely to agree, would likely take the opinion of a court who would decide whether the actions breached the legislation. Not worth doing but equally doesn't mean such behaviour should be considered acceptable.

Just to clarify again, if the company had wrote to OP and said "no more business for the two of us" that's fair enough as I see it.

One last thought on this topic aside from consumer rights, it's easy to blame people for their behaviour but there is a bit of reap what sow here, it was these companies that come along with these ideas of free and easy returns and hey isn't life convenient when we don't have to pay high rents & business rates and loads of staff you don't have to go to the shops it'll just turn up at your door in order to encourage people to buy from their online stores, not to mention a general idea of entitlement is good fuel for getting people to buy endless steams of rubbish they don't need, and shock horror, some people fall for it and use this convenience to it's fullest extent. 

The company would point out no rights have been breeched they would have honoured the 14 day return period.. The letter did not state or imply that a contract would be breached. The letter was a statement of fact, as that was our position.

For me to win a case the customer would have to believe that the company might breach the contract, leading them to take an action they wouldn't normally have taken. But there is no intention to breach the contract.

(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a)it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

(b)it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.

You'll note that it states does or is likely to, i.e may lead to in the future.

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Helps to understand what the CPRs encompass when debating why you think they don't apply  

Prices on supermarket shelves are factual and correct, CMA still makes reference to CPRs due the manner of presentation. 

3b)  means to appreciably impair their ability to make an informed decision.  The person is able to make an informed decision. The letter has informed them on what action the company might take. It's up to the customer to use that information as they see fit.

5 2A  There is no deception, the retailer has spelt out what action they might take. (saying you can't return a item would be deception, but the letter doesn't state that).

RefluentBeans

Have we actually seen this letter? Both @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head and @HillStreetBlues  have made valid legal arguments - but without seeing the letter we don’t know if it rises to the level of attempting to prevent someone from exercising their rights. 

For example, if at the bottom of the letter, there is a line saying ‘this doesn’t affect your statutory rights’ then does that negate the whole argument? 

What about saying ‘due to suspicious behaviour, we are limiting our returns policy to your statutory rights where you must tell us within 14 days of receiving the goods’? 

We could assume the contents of the letter is harsh and has the intention of limiting consumers exercising their rights (which I’m sure we can all agree is wrong) or we could assume the letter is to curb a small minority of people who effectively abuse the free returns, and is written from a green carbon footprint and/of hidden cost angle to make consumers aware of the cost of excessive returns. 

But we haven’t seen the letter (unless I’ve missed it?) and so it’s hard to judge whether it would infringe on people claiming their rights. 

HillStreetBlues

I totally agree that to make a judgement on the actual letter then the wording would be needed.
Both I &  the_lunatic_is_in_my_head are having a very interesting (that my view ) discussion on a hypothetical  issue it raises.
Nether of us would advise what action the OP should take with the limited info we have.

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

I totally agree that to make a judgement on the actual letter then the wording would be needed.
Both I &  the_lunatic_is_in_my_head are having a very interesting (that my view ) discussion on a hypothetical  issue it raises.
Nether of us would advise what action the OP should take with the limited info we have.

to be fair, it seems like the OP has left the discussion - Shame as I’d have liked to see the letter! 

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

I totally agree that to make a judgement on the actual letter then the wording would be needed.
Both I &  the_lunatic_is_in_my_head are having a very interesting (that my view ) discussion on a hypothetical  issue it raises.
Nether of us would advise what action the OP should take with the limited info we have.

to be fair, it seems like the OP has left the discussion - Shame as I’d have liked to see the letter! 

Me too.
As an previous post linked to a to an article stating

"Written warnings

Asos and Next are among the retailers sending out letters to problem returners"

Hopefully we will get to see one of those letters, find out if an action is taken against those companies sending out these type of letters.

I have little doubt those letters have been though the legal team and they OKed it, but doesn't mean they are correct.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

user1977 said:

But does the average consumer return the majority of clothing items they buy (and if they do, were they really expecting no repercussions)?

I expect many regulatory lawyers have already been all over this before us...

The average consumer is the benchmark against which to measure, the individual circumstances are not necessarily considered, this is what allows the CPRs to be so broad against not only existing circumstances but also ensures the legislation is future proofed without requiring amendment. 

The only down side to this is that it becomes vague leaving specifics waiting on case law or guidance from the likes of the CMA and companies will clearly use that to their advantage. 

So the question is whether the contents of the letter would deter the average consumer from from exercising the right to cancel, rather than whether it would deter the OP specifically.  

user1977

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

But does the average consumer return the majority of clothing items they buy (and if they do, were they really expecting no repercussions)?

I expect many regulatory lawyers have already been all over this before us...

So the question is whether the contents of the letter would deter the average consumer from from exercising the right to cancel, rather than whether it would deter the OP specifically.  

It sounds like the average consumer wouldn't receive the letter in the first place.

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If a person wanted to return an item and the retailer offered 50% off next order and keep item would that be OK?