Too heavy to return to store for refund, they refuse to collect, rights please.

Jaysaab

A friend recently purchased laminate flooring from Costco in the store, NOT online.
It was too heavy and bulky for her car so we took mine as well.
When the carpenters came to fit it they found it was warped.
Costco have agreed to a refund but she has to return it to the store.
I live near the store but she lives over 20 miles away. 
It will mean two(2) trips to the store for her or I will have to drive to her address and we take it in two(2) cars.
So this will cost us both fuel and time.
Costco online orders deliver and collect so it's not like they don't have the ability to collect the flooring.
It was purchased on a credit card.
Thoughts please.

born_again

As bought instore, it will have to be returned that way. If they are not prepared to pay. 

End of day, you had fuel & time to pick up. This is the danger of buying in person. 

DE_612183

you could find a "man with a van" - they might do it for you 

Ergates

Unfortunately, as it was an in store purchase then it remains the customer's responsibility to return it.

Whilst Costco *could* agree to collect, they're not required to.


The consumer contracts regulations state

35.

(1) Where a sales contract is cancelled under regulation 29(1), it is the trader's responsibility to collect the goods if—

(a)the trader has offered to collect them, or

(b)in the case of an off-premises contract, the goods were delivered to the consumer's home when the contract was entered into and could not, by their nature, normally be returned by post.

(2) If it is not the trader's responsibility under paragraph (1) to collect the goods, the consumer must—

(a)send them back, or

(b)hand them over to the trader or to a person authorised by the trader to receive them.

A_Geordie

The OP has indicated the flooring was warped, which would suggest not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act. Section 20(7) says that the Consumer's obligation following termination is to make the good available for collection unless there is an agreement between both parties for the consumer to return the goods.

The above text referenced by Ergates is in relation to distance cancellations for change of mind, not faulty goods. I would suggest the OP's friend go back to Costco and ask them to collect as the friend only needs to make it available. Of course this is on the assumption the friend wanted to cancel because the flooring was faulty, not because they wanted to change their mind and get a refund. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

The OP has indicated the flooring was warped, which would suggest not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act. Section 20(7) says that the Consumer's obligation following termination is to make the good available for collection unless there is an agreement between both parties for the consumer to return the goods.

Indeed:

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—

(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and

(b)the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

and paragraph (8) appears to imply the trader is responsible for the cost of collection as the bit about place of possession only refers to the consumer's costs (although happy to be corrected on that).

I guess it's a case of check the T&Cs on the invoice to see what it says about returning rejected goods.

Ergates said:

(b)in the case of an off-premises contract, 

In store is on-premises  

Off premises is defined as 

“off-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is any of these—

(a)

a contract concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;

(b)

a contract for which an offer was made by the consumer in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;

(c)

a contract concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer;

(d)

a contract concluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to the consumer;

 

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

(b)in the case of an off-premises contract, 

In store is on-premises   

That's why I bolded it - this wasn't an off-premises contract, ergo the potentially helpful bit about "could not, by their nature, normally be returned by post" does not apply.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

and paragraph (8) appears to imply the trader is responsible for the cost of collection as the bit about place of possession only refers to the consumer's costs (although happy to be corrected on that).

I guess it's a case of check the T&Cs on the invoice to see what it says about returning rejected goods.

Section 8 suggests the friend could present them with a bill for a 40 mile round trip's worth of petrol, or the cost of hiring a man-with-a-van.  Not sure how far "reasonable costs" extends.

Maybe highlighting this to them might encourage them to arrange collection.

A_Geordie

 I should add that there's a plausible argument that for large or bulky goods, a contract term that requires the consumer to return the goods may be considered an unfair contract term if they can't be returned by reasonable means i.e. courier or normal post, notwithstanding the fact that a consumer may have collected and transported the goods from the store. I've used this argument in court before for large appliances like american fridge/freezers, albeit only county court level. 

Also worth pointing out that Costco are required to refund within 14 days of agreeing the consumer is entitled to a refund (based on the OP's post, it seems they have already agreed to a refund). Refunds and return of the goods are not mutually exclusive.

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

and paragraph (8) appears to imply the trader is responsible for the cost of collection as the bit about place of possession only refers to the consumer's costs (although happy to be corrected on that).

I guess it's a case of check the T&Cs on the invoice to see what it says about returning rejected goods.

So as stated by others, the customer took possession of them in the store and so the company dont have to cover the cost of the customer returning them to the store

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

and paragraph (8) appears to imply the trader is responsible for the cost of collection as the bit about place of possession only refers to the consumer's costs (although happy to be corrected on that).

I guess it's a case of check the T&Cs on the invoice to see what it says about returning rejected goods.

So as stated by others, the customer took possession of them in the store and so the company dont have to cover the cost of the customer returning them to the store

I get that bit but if Costco haven’t drafted terms stating the consumer must return rejected goods then Costco must collect and that paragraph (8) seems to imply to collection cost is for the trader to bear regardless of where the consumer took possession. 

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

(b)in the case of an off-premises contract, 

In store is on-premises   

That's why I bolded it - this wasn't an off-premises contract, ergo the potentially helpful bit about "could not, by their nature, normally be returned by post” does not apply.

I see  

Ergates said

Section 8 suggests the friend could present them with a bill for a 40 mile round trip's worth of petrol, or the cost of hiring a man-with-a-van.  Not sure how far "reasonable costs" extends.

Maybe highlighting this to them might encourage them to arrange collection.

 I think it says the opposite in that if you buy in store and return yourself you can’t claim the cost of getting back to the store. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

and paragraph (8) appears to imply the trader is responsible for the cost of collection as the bit about place of possession only refers to the consumer's costs (although happy to be corrected on that).

I guess it's a case of check the T&Cs on the invoice to see what it says about returning rejected goods.

So as stated by others, the customer took possession of them in the store and so the company dont have to cover the cost of the customer returning them to the store

I get that bit but if Costco haven’t drafted terms stating the consumer must return rejected goods then Costco must collect and that paragraph (8) seems to imply to collection cost is for the trader to bear regardless of where the consumer took possession. 

Ergates said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

(b)in the case of an off-premises contract, 

In store is on-premises   

That's why I bolded it - this wasn't an off-premises contract, ergo the potentially helpful bit about "could not, by their nature, normally be returned by post” does not apply.

I see  

Ergates said

Section 8 suggests the friend could present them with a bill for a 40 mile round trip's worth of petrol, or the cost of hiring a man-with-a-van.  Not sure how far "reasonable costs" extends.

Maybe highlighting this to them might encourage them to arrange collection.

 I think it says the opposite in that if you buy in store and return yourself you can’t claim the cost of getting back to the store. 

Since when have instore purchaces come with a list of T&C's?