We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Do the Distance Selling Regs Apply? Restocking Charge.

Options
13

Comments

  • RefluentBeans
    RefluentBeans Posts: 1,154 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    As always life isn't black and white... there is little harm in mentioning the CCR but personally would reserve it until the organisation declines based on their own worse policy. However mentioning CCR is different to opening the conversations quoting CCR 28(c)(i)-(iii) which is more likely to elicit a more extreme response from the other side. 

    But within the required timeframe :)

    Not sure what CCR 28(c)(i)-(iii) is? Wrong section? :) 
    Random section to illustrate a point 
    100% agree with this. Most consumers haven’t read the legalisation and will have selection bias based on what they want to achieve in reading consume rights blogs. MSE gives a fairly well rounded and accurate description. But there’s others which overemphasises the consumer rights that consumer have and think that consumers can do no wrong, ever, and that the retailer is wrong, always. 

    Like you say, from working in customer service the rights and what people feel they are entitled to are often at odds. The rights apply to every transaction of the type and thus are very general. Retailers can make their own policies which are more specific (and are usually fairly generous, using the law as a basis for their own policies, but with some risk management in there too). 

    By quoting long swathes of the consumer rights act to retailers (like some encourage on here) the retailer will do what I do - skip to what the consumer wants and the point of the message, skipping all of the copy pasta of legalisation that may (or may not) be relevant. 

    The best solutions normally come from the being firm, but not condescending or rude to the employees, and keeping the arguments simple. In this case:
    1. Item was purchased online (and paid for online) - no chance to inspect the item and thus falls firmly in the distance contract. 
    2. Contract was cancelled within 14 days - but this may not have been interpreted. 
    3. You are a consumer (not a business) and thus the CCR’s are the governing legalisation.
    4. You would like a refund of the full amount (less postage, only if specified in contract).

    The specific sections of the law are not needed, and only introduce bulk to a letter.  
  • Okell
    Okell Posts: 2,644 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    Kev1958 said:
    Does anyone know what this means or relates to?

    "6 Limits of Application (2) These Regulations do not apply to contracts—

    (c)concluded for the use of one single connection, by telephone, internet or fax, established by a consumer;"

    Don't worry.  That is wholly irrelevant to you buying a boiler part over the 'phone.
  • Hoenir
    Hoenir Posts: 7,742 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited 4 April 2024 at 1:52PM
    eskbanker said:
    Hoenir said:
    As the part was specifically ordered in who bears the cost of handling the transaction, i.e. procuring and returning ?  
    Not the consumer, if a distance purchase, that's all that matters here!
    Are all direct telephone sales regarded as a "distance purchase" per se? 
  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 9,260 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 4 April 2024 at 2:32PM
    Hoenir said:
    eskbanker said:
    Hoenir said:
    As the part was specifically ordered in who bears the cost of handling the transaction, i.e. procuring and returning ?  
    Not the consumer, if a distance purchase, that's all that matters here!
    Are all direct telephone sales regarded as a "distance purchase" per se? 
    A distance contract means (to quote) a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

    So if you don't normally take orders over the phone but do as a one off then that isn't a distance sale. 

    Based on past threads the meaning of the word "concluded" seems to have some ambiguity but I think it means the point at which both parties are bound by the obligation of a contract.   

    Random section to illustrate a point 
    Gotcha :)



    By quoting long swathes of the consumer rights act to retailers (like some encourage on here) the retailer will do what I do - skip to what the consumer wants and the point of the message, skipping all of the copy pasta of legalisation that may (or may not) be relevant. 

    The issue is where one of two things happens.

    First, the, probably smaller, retailer thinks their policy is right when it's in contradiction to the legislation, given there's money on the hook they are unlikely to have a sudden epiphany just because a random customer says so so backing their position with the working out seems sensible.

    The second is dealing with big companies who have policy and staff who don't have decision making ability, really you are better off going higher up the chain in that instance, the problem is whether you get high enough and perhaps by quoting legislation to a member of staff who doesn't have the ability to abide by it under company policy they will forward it higher. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • Hoenir
    Hoenir Posts: 7,742 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Hoenir said:
    eskbanker said:
    Hoenir said:
    As the part was specifically ordered in who bears the cost of handling the transaction, i.e. procuring and returning ?  
    Not the consumer, if a distance purchase, that's all that matters here!
    Are all direct telephone sales regarded as a "distance purchase" per se? 
    A distance contract means (to quote) a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

    So if you don't normally take orders over the phone but do as a one off then that isn't a distance sale. 

    Based on past threads the meaning of the word "concluded" seems to have some ambiguity but I think it means the point at which both parties are bound by the obligation of a contract.   


    Thanks for the clarification. 
  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 18,613 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    Hoenir said:
    eskbanker said:
    Hoenir said:
    As the part was specifically ordered in who bears the cost of handling the transaction, i.e. procuring and returning ?  
    Not the consumer, if a distance purchase, that's all that matters here!
    Are all direct telephone sales regarded as a "distance purchase" per se? 
    More or less... the key is that the contract was bound over the phone, ie you paid remotely. If it was the telephone version of "click and reserve" where you then pay in store then it doesn't apply. 
  • Hoenir
    Hoenir Posts: 7,742 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited 4 April 2024 at 5:22PM
    Hoenir said:
    eskbanker said:
    Hoenir said:
    As the part was specifically ordered in who bears the cost of handling the transaction, i.e. procuring and returning ?  
    Not the consumer, if a distance purchase, that's all that matters here!
    Are all direct telephone sales regarded as a "distance purchase" per se? 
    More or less... the key is that the contract was bound over the phone, ie you paid remotely. If it was the telephone version of "click and reserve" where you then pay in store then it doesn't apply. 
    The part wouldn't have been ordered from the manufacturer without payment upfront though. The trader (acting as a stockist as opposed to a retailer) has an existing distributor supply contract with the manufacturer that exposes them to a liability. If the customer doesn't turn up and pay for the item. 
  • Kev1958
    Kev1958 Posts: 8 Forumite
    First Post
    Okell said:
    Kev1958 said:
    Update. Spoke to the supplier (Man. Director) who was having none of it. They deal with thousands of these transactions etc. Explained as a consumer I should be entitled to a full refund etc. Apparently I am a purchaser and not a consumer. I'll write and if no joy I suppose I will revert to the card company to see if anything can be done.
    From my post yesterday at 7:36pm:

    "Is it possible that you bought from a company that usually only sells to the trade and they are not aware you are a consumer?  Have you explained that you are a consumer?"

    Have you bought from a company that normally only supplies to the trade and not to the public?  If you have, they will argue that you are not a consumer and that you are a trade purchaser.  It doesn't necessarily mean they're right, but it does mean you'll have to persuade them that they're wrong!

    The legal definition of a "consumer" for these purposes is in Regulation 4:  ' 
    “consumer” means an individual acting for purposes which are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession'.

    Do you meet that definition?

    I meet the definition and interestingly the company mention both consumers and traders in their online Data policy. The restocking charge is a scam as far as I can see. Thanks for your input, letter going today.
  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 18,613 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    Kev1958 said:
    Okell said:
    Kev1958 said:
    Update. Spoke to the supplier (Man. Director) who was having none of it. They deal with thousands of these transactions etc. Explained as a consumer I should be entitled to a full refund etc. Apparently I am a purchaser and not a consumer. I'll write and if no joy I suppose I will revert to the card company to see if anything can be done.
    From my post yesterday at 7:36pm:

    "Is it possible that you bought from a company that usually only sells to the trade and they are not aware you are a consumer?  Have you explained that you are a consumer?"

    Have you bought from a company that normally only supplies to the trade and not to the public?  If you have, they will argue that you are not a consumer and that you are a trade purchaser.  It doesn't necessarily mean they're right, but it does mean you'll have to persuade them that they're wrong!

    The legal definition of a "consumer" for these purposes is in Regulation 4:  ' “consumer” means an individual acting for purposes which are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession'.

    Do you meet that definition?

    I meet the definition and interestingly the company mention both consumers and traders in their online Data policy. The restocking charge is a scam as far as I can see. Thanks for your input, letter going today.
    Scam is a bit strong... many companies think the rules on distance selling are far too loaded to the customer and they have to deal with vast amounts of returns of which a good proportion cannot be resold as new. Clothing generally has it the worst with some companies reporting over a 67% return rate (people buy a dress in 12, 14 and 16 in blue and green colour ways and then decide to keep the blue 14 and return the other 5).

    There will be many who are just ignorant of the laws, after all anyone can setup a webshop tomorrow with absolutely no legal training or guidance etc. They can set policies they think are fair like a straight pass through of costs but they breach the regulations. 

    I somewhat agree with them that the rules are too generous and people do take the !!!!!! but the way to fix that is via parliament/ your MP not breaching the rules. 
  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 9,260 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 5 April 2024 at 12:12PM
    Scam is a bit strong... many companies think the rules on distance selling are far too loaded to the customer and they have to deal with vast amounts of returns of which a good proportion cannot be resold as new. Clothing generally has it the worst with some companies reporting over a 67% return rate (people buy a dress in 12, 14 and 16 in blue and green colour ways and then decide to keep the blue 14 and return the other 5).

    Interesting video on Primark

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiKGoOpLoLs

    Pointing out the high costs of logistics and returns that Primark have opted not be involved with by sticking to in store shopping.

    Makes you wonder if the "it's cheaper online" is always true once the big companies stop covering these costs and add them into the products.
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.