Want to buy vintage tool. Site terms state that they are not liable if item is lost in transit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Bradden said:

Ergates said:

prowla said:

Incidentally, you have to wonder why the seller is attempting to make these stipulations regarding his responsibilities: have they had issues with items going missing when in the hands of their appointed agent (the courier)?

If the courier companies (including Royal Mail) actually cared about providing a decent and reliable service it would be a different matter.   But they very obviously don't - they're all about maximising profit.

I don't think it's that simple.. people tend to pick a service based on price.. and then complain afterwards when the service isn't great.

The courier industry is typical of many today, a handful of companies have the majority of market share and drive down price to attract customers to then achieve economies of scale. 

I do agree there is a certain mentality of everyone wanting everything as cheap as possible but personally I think it's a side affect of a system which drives you to consume to excess, billions are spent on advertising to convince you that you want everything but you can't afford everything so instead of buying a handful of expensive, good quality items you just buy as much cheap rubbish as possible which is exactly what most companies want you to do. 

That said most couriers are fine in my experience as their vast sizes should lead to higher efficiency, with most problems only occurring on the last leg to your door where you have someone new on the round, this usually causes the most problems when you have a high turnover of drivers on a round in a short time due to poor pay and conditions, again something big business want to achieve but would be most pleased if the blame could be shifted on to consumer expectations

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80833583#Comment_80833583

RefluentBeans

GervisLooper said:

RefluentBeans said:

GervisLooper said:

GervisLooper said:

This seems like a genuine and longstanding website so no reason to think they would do anything underhanded. It is just if anything went awry it seems they are trying to absolve responsibility for claiming a refund for any issues in transit.

Here are the terms: https://www.timelesstools.co.uk/salesinformation.htm

One thing that sticks out to me is they state that if an item gets lost in transit is it not their responsibility and that the buyer would have to claim for insurance. Doesn't make sense to me. The seller is responsible for that no? Not only that they should refund the buyer and make an insurance claim themselves not have the onus be on the buyer.

As I understand it the consumer rights act would make those claims on the website null and void? Regardless there is no guarantee an individual seller will honour the act as I had happen not long ago where a seller just decided to ignore me after I told them they were in breach. Most times though when citing the consumer rights act sellers have then done what is right but there seems tp be no consequences for failing to adhere to it except if you drug it to court I guess,

Issue is that I don't use paypal and they only suggest check as an alternative so if there were any issues the ball would be in their court wouldn't it?

Would be paying 60 quid or thereabouts so not a trifling amount I would really want to risk.

Hard to come by these items though. There is one other site but not sure of their terms yet as haven't looked closely but they seem to be selling for higher average prices.

Not keen on the wording though that the buyer has to make the insurance claim but they will help any way they can. They should refund the buyer and make the claim themselves as it is the seller's responsibility and item gets to the buyer safely isn't it? Just like when if a buyer wants to send an item back it is then their responsibility it gets back to seller safely.

I do not use paypal by choice. Just like how I don't use amazon or ebay!

Protest!

I also accept that limits my options in terms of buying rights. Just how I also accept being vegan is a protest and limits my food options!

Then out of protest of illegal terms, shop elsewhere!

Ultimately there’s a difference being legally right and having to drag someone through court to make them realise you’re right and they’re wrong. Other options like chargeback, S75, and PayPal buyer protection gives you some piece of mind but ultimately (with the exception of S75, which unless it’s over £100, and you paid on a credit card, you wouldn’t be covered) it is extrajudicial meaning it doesn’t change the contract, and will only be successful if the seller doesn’t respond or the good don’t exist. In most other times the card company/PayPal will want to keep the status quo of the contract. In these cases, you’d need to go through the courts, if the seller doesn’t recognise your rights.

It’s Down to how much you trust the seller, and how much you want the goods/trust the seller to have good quality. Because if they’re not wanting to recognise your rights on the returns through CCR, what chance have you got if the product becomes faulty? 

Up to you - but red flags are on show here 

Well it is a case of conflicting values here.

I avoid the big monopolies precisely because they become dehumanizing and as such want to support small businesses like this. I think it is unlikely this seller intentionally worded it to 'get out' of being responsible for items lost. They may have, but probably more likely, as someone else, there has been no cause to make the wording legally airtight due to low traffic and the issue not arising.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a deal breaker but rather want to enquire further if it was intentional or not. If it seems they did that deliberately then walk away. There is one other seller who did not have such clauses in their terms that I saw but as I said average price is about 30-50% higher. So swings and roundabouts given the sparse options for these niche tools.

I am thinking pointing it out in an email and if they are standoffish about it then that is when I would throw in the towel.

It is like a relationship - someone might have some good traits and some red flags, you try and negotiate first before walking away .

Their policy isn’t legally airtight. But like I said - there’s a difference between being legally right and actually getting a refund. 

The person may have written it in good faith, but not know the legality of it (and when pointed out may cave) - akin to the ‘no refunds’ signs some smaller stores have - it’s a clearer message than ‘no refunds except for those you are legally entitled to under the consumer rights act, consumer protection from unfair trading act, the consumer contract regulations, etc’ as that is rather a mouthful. Or they may knowingly attempting to limit your rights. It’s impossible to say until something happens. 

Like you said it’s a relationship, and some you may want to work through. Personally, if it’s a business I haven’t used before, and a business I haven’t really had much interaction with, my give and take is going to be more limited than a business I know has a good history and a slip up is just a human error. That also goes the other way too - the whole ‘I’m a loyal customer here, and I’d hate to have to shop elsewhere’ trope of bending the rules in shops works because if you’ve spent money, they’re more willing to lose some money to make more money of you in the future. If you’ve never shopped with them before, and they’re a niche store - what’s the likelihood of you shopping again there. 

Only you can make a decision on this - but when there’s red flags I’d be careful.