Excessive handling charge for returning unwanted goods

dgwilliams

I bought 35 downlight at a costs of £320 from an online retailer. I discovered after I received them that they do not fit the holes in my ceiling. Therefore I wrote and said I wanted to return them. They told me there would be a 30% handling charge and I should have checked the size with the details on their website. 
They have also said that charging a handling charge is "normal practice in the industry" and will not change the charge. There was no mention of a 30% charge in their T&Cs or on the invoice.
What action should I take?

born_again

Which retailer?
Could be that they are a trade based seller, where that is the norm.

MSE idea, just get the holes made bigger to fit 👍

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

Can you link to the website please?

tacpot12

30% restocking fee seems steep, but there may be a reason for it within their business model. If you don't agree to it, they don't have take the items back if they aren't faulty, so I think you are going to have to accept the charge and the lesson that you need to check dimensions carefully. (I won't buy from online retailers that are too lazy to put the critical dimensions on their website.)

Okell

tacpot12 said:

30% restocking fee seems steep, but there may be a reason for it within their business model. If you don't agree to it, they don't have take the items back if they aren't faulty, so I think you are going to have to accept the charge and the lesson that you need to check dimensions carefully. (I won't buy from online retailers that are too lazy to put the critical dimensions on their website.)

Unless he's outside the 14 day window, why wouldn't the OP be able simply to cancel the distance contract under the CCRs?  If the contract is being cancelled, why wouldn't the seller have to take them back if they aren't faulty?

So far as I'm aware, restocking fees - whether 30% or 5% - are not applicable to consumer contracts.

The seller might be able to reduce any refund to reflect a loss of value caused by "excessive handling", but they can't just charge a flat rate of 30% across the board for all returns or cancellations.

Okell

dgwilliams said:

I bought 35 downlight at a costs of £320 from an online retailer. I discovered after I received them that they do not fit the holes in my ceiling. Therefore I wrote and said I wanted to return them. They told me there would be a 30% handling charge and I should have checked the size with the details on their website. 
They have also said that charging a handling charge is "normal practice in the industry" and will not change the charge. There was no mention of a 30% charge in their T&Cs or on the invoice.
What action should I take?

When were they delivered to you?  If within 14 days you can cancel this as a distance contract for a full refund, although you may have to pay the return costs.

Depending on what information they gave you pre-contract, you might still be able to cancel even if outside 14 days.  This is why you've been asked what website you purchased from so we can see their T&Cs.

Assuming you puchased as a consumer there might be a slight complication if you bought from a website that usually only sells to the trade - but this can be sorted.

Your thread title refers to "excessive handling" - which is something that can reduce your refund if you cancel a distance sale - but in the thread you only refer to a "handling charge".  How did the seller actually describe this charge?  Was it just "handling" or was it "excessive handling"?  (It can be argued that these are two separate and distinct things and their meanings are different).

Undervalued

Okell said:

tacpot12 said:

30% restocking fee seems steep, but there may be a reason for it within their business model. If you don't agree to it, they don't have take the items back if they aren't faulty, so I think you are going to have to accept the charge and the lesson that you need to check dimensions carefully. (I won't buy from online retailers that are too lazy to put the critical dimensions on their website.)

Unless he's outside the 14 day window, why wouldn't the OP be able simply to cancel the distance contract under the CCRs?  If the contract is being cancelled, why wouldn't the seller have to take them back if they aren't faulty?

So far as I'm aware, restocking fees - whether 30% or 5% - are not applicable to consumer contracts.

The seller might be able to reduce any refund to reflect a loss of value caused by "excessive handling", but they can't just charge a flat rate of 30% across the board for all returns or cancellations.

Assuming this was a consumer and not trade sale then you are legally correct. That said, morally I have some sympathy with the seller, although I agree 30% is steep.

However, I am not sure what happens if the seller makes clear they are "trade only" (like Howdens for example) but accidentally accepts an order from a consumer?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

However, I am not sure what happens if the seller makes clear they are "trade only" (like Howdens for example) but accidentally accepts an order from a consumer?

A consumer is defined as means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession.

A company claiming to be this that or the other doesn't change the wording of the CRA  

Bradden

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Undervalued said:

However, I am not sure what happens if the seller makes clear they are "trade only" (like Howdens for example) but accidentally accepts an order from a consumer?

A consumer is defined as means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession.

A company claiming to be this that or the other doesn't change the wording of the CRA  

Howdens and other trade suppliers comply with the CRA. You cannot place an order with Howdens without a trade account and they only offer accounts to business customers. 

Okell

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

tacpot12 said:

30% restocking fee seems steep, but there may be a reason for it within their business model. If you don't agree to it, they don't have take the items back if they aren't faulty, so I think you are going to have to accept the charge and the lesson that you need to check dimensions carefully. (I won't buy from online retailers that are too lazy to put the critical dimensions on their website.)

Unless he's outside the 14 day window, why wouldn't the OP be able simply to cancel the distance contract under the CCRs?  If the contract is being cancelled, why wouldn't the seller have to take them back if they aren't faulty?

So far as I'm aware, restocking fees - whether 30% or 5% - are not applicable to consumer contracts.

The seller might be able to reduce any refund to reflect a loss of value caused by "excessive handling", but they can't just charge a flat rate of 30% across the board for all returns or cancellations.

Assuming this was a consumer and not trade sale then you are legally correct. That said, morally I have some sympathy with the seller, although I agree 30% is steep.

However, I am not sure what happens if the seller makes clear they are "trade only" (like Howdens for example) but accidentally accepts an order from a consumer?

I understand. 

I think the lunatic has got it right that what a consumer is is defined in the Consumer Rights Act and in The Consumer Contracts (Information etc etc) Regulations.

Howdens and similar traders can choose not to sell to consumers, but if they do sell to someone who is a consumer, I don't think they can turn round and say "This wasn't a consumer contract because we only sell to the trade".

The definition of a consumer is set within the legislation.  I don't think the mere fact of Howdens etc selling something to someone necessarily makes that person something other than a consumer.

I'm also assuming that because the OP talks about "my ceiling" that this is a consumer DIY job.

But I could be wrong about all the above.

MattMattMattUK

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

tacpot12 said:

30% restocking fee seems steep, but there may be a reason for it within their business model. If you don't agree to it, they don't have take the items back if they aren't faulty, so I think you are going to have to accept the charge and the lesson that you need to check dimensions carefully. (I won't buy from online retailers that are too lazy to put the critical dimensions on their website.)

Unless he's outside the 14 day window, why wouldn't the OP be able simply to cancel the distance contract under the CCRs?  If the contract is being cancelled, why wouldn't the seller have to take them back if they aren't faulty?

So far as I'm aware, restocking fees - whether 30% or 5% - are not applicable to consumer contracts.

The seller might be able to reduce any refund to reflect a loss of value caused by "excessive handling", but they can't just charge a flat rate of 30% across the board for all returns or cancellations.

Assuming this was a consumer and not trade sale then you are legally correct. That said, morally I have some sympathy with the seller, although I agree 30% is steep.

However, I am not sure what happens if the seller makes clear they are "trade only" (like Howdens for example) but accidentally accepts an order from a consumer?

I understand. 

I think the lunatic has got it right that what a consumer is is defined in the Consumer Rights Act and in The Consumer Contracts (Information etc etc) Regulations.

Howdens and similar traders can choose not to sell to consumers, but if they do sell to someone who is a consumer, I don't think they can turn round and say "This wasn't a consumer contract because we only sell to the trade".

The definition of a consumer is set within the legislation.  I don't think the mere fact of Howdens etc selling something to someone necessarily makes that person something other than a consumer.

I'm also assuming that because the OP talks about "my ceiling" that this is a consumer DIY job.

But I could be wrong about all the above.

Howdens require someone to confirm that they are a trade purchaser to be able to buy from them, it is a requirement to be able to open a trade account and they only allow people with a trade account to buy from them, I think it would be very difficult to argue that one was a consumer under those circumstances.