Is the company responsible for collecting large faulty items?

doveman

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress and it's faulty, but they're saying that I have to to take it to the post office and return it myself, which is impossible as it weighs about 30kg and the box was held together with plastic strips which I obviously had to cut to open it.

I thought the company has to arrange collection of large faulty items at their own expense, but I can't find anywhere that actually says this, so can anyone point me to what the law actually says about this?

dumpster_fire2025

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress and it's faulty, but they're saying that I have to to take it to the post office and return it myself, which is impossible as it weighs about 30kg and the box was held together with plastic strips which I obviously had to cut to open it.

I thought the company has to arrange collection of large faulty items at their own expense, but I can't find anywhere that actually says this, so can anyone point me to what the law actually says about this?

The legislation doesn't place any responsibility on the seller to arrange collection of the goods. The legislation says this

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.

So they would need to reimburse you for the return costs (as long as they are reasonable) but they don't need to arrange collection. If you've cut the plastic strips (presumably the stuff that digs into your skin if you try and pick it up by them) then could you not just use multiple layers of tape? You could also use a site like ParcelMonkey and arrange shipping though that, the other couriers may have a pickup service if there is a reason why you can't get it to a drop-off point yourself.

DullGreyGuy

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress and it's faulty, but they're saying that I have to to take it to the post office and return it myself, which is impossible as it weighs about 30kg and the box was held together with plastic strips which I obviously had to cut to open it.

I thought the company has to arrange collection of large faulty items at their own expense, but I can't find anywhere that actually says this, so can anyone point me to what the law actually says about this?

Wouldnt have thought the Post Office would handle such a sized parcel but according to Google they will take parcel up to 30kg which is surprising. So if it's over 30kg, as you seem to suggest it may be, then the PO isnt an option anyway. 

Law says that the business must ultimately cover the reasonable cost of the return not that they must arrange for the return or pay it in advance. 

GingerTim

DullGreyGuy said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress and it's faulty, but they're saying that I have to to take it to the post office and return it myself, which is impossible as it weighs about 30kg and the box was held together with plastic strips which I obviously had to cut to open it.

I thought the company has to arrange collection of large faulty items at their own expense, but I can't find anywhere that actually says this, so can anyone point me to what the law actually says about this?

Wouldnt have thought the Post Office would handle such a sized parcel but according to Google they will take parcel up to 30kg which is surprising. So if it's over 30kg, as you seem to suggest it may be, then the PO isnt an option anyway. 

Law says that the business must ultimately cover the reasonable cost of the return not that they must arrange for the return or pay it in advance. 

According to the Royal Mail website (https://help.royalmail.com/personal/s/article/Size-and-weight-guide ) it's a maximum of 20kg (Parcelforce would do 30kg). But agreed that the PO is not an option - even if they accepted a parcel of that weight they wouldn't handle one of the dimensions of a portable A/C unit.

DullGreyGuy

But this is a question of if the Post Office will accept it or not rather than Royal Mail or ParcelForce. The PO also deal with Evri and DPD

Okell

dumpster_fire2025 said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress and it's faulty, but they're saying that I have to to take it to the post office and return it myself, which is impossible as it weighs about 30kg and the box was held together with plastic strips which I obviously had to cut to open it.

I thought the company has to arrange collection of large faulty items at their own expense, but I can't find anywhere that actually says this, so can anyone point me to what the law actually says about this?

The legislation doesn't place any responsibility on the seller to arrange collection of the goods. The legislation says this

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.

So they would need to reimburse you for the return costs (as long as they are reasonable) but they don't need to arrange collection. If you've cut the plastic strips (presumably the stuff that digs into your skin if you try and pick it up by them) then could you not just use multiple layers of tape? You could also use a site like ParcelMonkey and arrange shipping though that, the other couriers may have a pickup service if there is a reason why you can't get it to a drop-off point yourself.

Isn't that perhaps a slightly selective and potentially misleading reply?

What all of the relevant subsection of s20 (Right to Reject) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 actually says is:


"(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.  [my bold for emphasis]

(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."

So although you are correct that the trader has to bear the reasonable cost of return if the consumer returns faulty goods, my understanding is that unless there is a prior agreement that the consumer is responsible for returning faulty goods, then the trader is responsible for collecting them.  All the consumer has to do is make them available for collection.

A_Geordie

I'm going to go against @dumpster_fire2025 and @DullGreyGuy suggestion that the onus is on the consumer to pay for the cost of return and then have it refunded afterwards. Number of reasons for this: 

1. It is true that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not explicitly say the trader has to arrange collection, but arranging for the return and paying for the cost of return are two distinct and separate obligations. The phrase the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them is evidence that the trader is responsible for paying the cost of return, not the consumer, and then having to recover the money after the fact. The explanatory notes says ... This includes the trader paying postal costs. This applies whether or not the consumer has agreed to return the goods, as mentioned in subsection (7). 

2. The phrase 'bear costs' is very commonly used in litigation, particularly settlement agreements. It is accepted to mean that each side is responsible for paying their own costs, but never has it meant that each side must pay the other's sides costs and then invoice them for a refund of the amount afterwards. Likewise, it is also used in commercial agreements and again, the word 'bear' is taken to mean that you are responsible for paying, not anyone else. Given this is consumer friendly legislation, why would this meaning be interpreted more restrictively than in a B2B setting? 

3. Forcing the consumer to pay the return costs has the ability to restrict or at least create potentially dificult barriers to the consumer obtaining a refund  contrary to section 31(2) of the CRA, which says: 

... a term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would—
(a) exclude or restrict a right or remedy in respect of a liability under a provision listed in subsection (1),
(b) make such a right or remedy or its enforcement subject to a restrictive or onerous condition,
(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy, or
(d) exclude or restrict rules of evidence or procedure.

It is not always possible to arrange a delivery for large or heavy items or other items that are fragile or otherwise expensive. As we know, most couriers have a long list of exlusions as to what they can or cannot carry. Even if the consumer was able to overcome the courier's list of exlusions, it might be a cost they cannot afford or may take some time if money is tight. 

4. If Parliament really intended that it was the consumer's obligation to arrange and pay for the cost of returning faulty goods, then they would not have said that the trader must bear the return costs and there would have been language along the lines of the consumer must return the goods which includes the costs associated with return and those return costs will be refunded by the trader. 

By way of example, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (also known as the distance selling rights and including the right to cancel for change of mind), Regulation 35 says:

(5) The consumer must bear the direct cost of returning goods under paragraph (2), unless—

(a)the trader has agreed to bear those costs, or

(b) the trader failed to provide the consumer with the information about the consumer bearing those costs, required by paragraph (m) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

As above, it states the consumer is responsible for the costs of returning the goods. The language in the CRA (which is concerned with faulty goods or services rather than a right to change your mind) states the trader should bear the costs of returning the goods, which is the complete opposite of what is stated in the CCRs. Logically, it would be impossible to suggest both statements mean the same thing, which is that the consumer bears the cost of return in both instances. 

Simply put, if a contract says the consumer must return the goods, that's fine they can make arrangements for the return but the trader must pay for the return, not the consumer. Anyhting indicating the consumer bearning the cost of the return and being refunded back to the consumer is, in my opinion contrary to the CRA.

Okell

@A_Geordie -  isn't the more straightforward approach that s20(7) of the CRA impliedly makes the trader responsible for collection of the faulty goods unless there is a prior agreement that the consumer should return them?

Yes, the trader is responsible for paying reasonable return costs in the event that the consumer does return them, but all the consumer is legally obliged to do is to make the faulty goods available for collection by the trader

doveman

dumpster_fire2025 said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress and it's faulty, but they're saying that I have to to take it to the post office and return it myself, which is impossible as it weighs about 30kg and the box was held together with plastic strips which I obviously had to cut to open it.

I thought the company has to arrange collection of large faulty items at their own expense, but I can't find anywhere that actually says this, so can anyone point me to what the law actually says about this?

The legislation doesn't place any responsibility on the seller to arrange collection of the goods. The legislation says this

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.

So they would need to reimburse you for the return costs (as long as they are reasonable) but they don't need to arrange collection. If you've cut the plastic strips (presumably the stuff that digs into your skin if you try and pick it up by them) then could you not just use multiple layers of tape? You could also use a site like ParcelMonkey and arrange shipping though that, the other couriers may have a pickup service if there is a reason why you can't get it to a drop-off point yourself.

Yeah, I could probably hold the parcel together by wrapping loads of brown tape around it. I expect a courier will charge a lot of collect such a large and heavy item though, and the Returns instructions on AliExpress say "Please take the item(s) you're returning to a reliable and economical postal service within the specified return period. Avoid using a commercial shipper to prevent incurring high costs. You may prepay the shipping fee. If the item was assembled, please disassemble it before returning."

It also says "After the item passes our warehouse quality inspection, we will refund the order amount. Please prepay the return shipping fee. We will decide whether to refund the shipping fee based on your rights, warehouse inspection of the items, and other factors. Please contact our Customer Service Center to proceed. In certain special circumstances, shipping fees cannot be refunded."

I also saw somewhere (which I can't find ATM) it said they would refund any shipping costs by giving me a coupon and the return address given is "Joao 08002404050, Northampton UNIT 2, NORTHAMPTON CROSS ROAD, NORTHAMPTON, North Northamptonshire, England, GB, NN4 9FH" which is not the address for Aosom MHSTAR UK Store. So it all sounds rather dodgy and I fear I could end up not being refunded, and I couldn't do a chargeback for the return shipping fees because the courier company will have done what I paid them for.

doveman

A_Geordie said:

I'm going to go against @dumpster_fire2025 and @DullGreyGuy suggestion that the onus is on the consumer to pay for the cost of return and then have it refunded afterwards. Number of reasons for this: 

1. It is true that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not explicitly say the trader has to arrange collection, but arranging for the return and paying for the cost of return are two distinct and separate obligations. The phrase the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them is evidence that the trader is responsible for paying the cost of return, not the consumer, and then having to recover the money after the fact. The explanatory notes says ... This includes the trader paying postal costs. This applies whether or not the consumer has agreed to return the goods, as mentioned in subsection (7). 

2. The phrase 'bear costs' is very commonly used in litigation, particularly settlement agreements. It is accepted to mean that each side is responsible for paying their own costs, but never has it meant that each side must pay the other's sides costs and then invoice them for a refund of the amount afterwards. Likewise, it is also used in commercial agreements and again, the word 'bear' is taken to mean that you are responsible for paying, not anyone else. Given this is consumer friendly legislation, why would this meaning be interpreted more restrictively than in a B2B setting? 

3. Forcing the consumer to pay the return costs has the ability to restrict or at least create potentially dificult barriers to the consumer obtaining a refund  contrary to section 31(2) of the CRA, which says: 

... a term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would—
(a) exclude or restrict a right or remedy in respect of a liability under a provision listed in subsection (1),
(b) make such a right or remedy or its enforcement subject to a restrictive or onerous condition,
(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy, or
(d) exclude or restrict rules of evidence or procedure.

It is not always possible to arrange a delivery for large or heavy items or other items that are fragile or otherwise expensive. As we know, most couriers have a long list of exlusions as to what they can or cannot carry. Even if the consumer was able to overcome the courier's list of exlusions, it might be a cost they cannot afford or may take some time if money is tight. 

4. If Parliament really intended that it was the consumer's obligation to arrange and pay for the cost of returning faulty goods, then they would not have said that the trader must bear the return costs and there would have been language along the lines of the consumer must return the goods which includes the costs associated with return and those return costs will be refunded by the trader. 

By way of example, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (also known as the distance selling rights and including the right to cancel for change of mind), Regulation 35 says:

(5) The consumer must bear the direct cost of returning goods under paragraph (2), unless—

(a)the trader has agreed to bear those costs, or

(b) the trader failed to provide the consumer with the information about the consumer bearing those costs, required by paragraph (m) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

As above, it states the consumer is responsible for the costs of returning the goods. The language in the CRA (which is concerned with faulty goods or services rather than a right to change your mind) states the trader should bear the costs of returning the goods, which is the complete opposite of what is stated in the CCRs. Logically, it would be impossible to suggest both statements mean the same thing, which is that the consumer bears the cost of return in both instances. 

Simply put, if a contract says the consumer must return the goods, that's fine they can make arrangements for the return but the trader must pay for the return, not the consumer. Anyhting indicating the consumer bearning the cost of the return and being refunded back to the consumer is, in my opinion contrary to the CRA.

That interpretation makes sense to me. As you say, the specific wording is important and it would be illogical to interpret two different pieces of legislation which each say the opposite thing as both meaning the same thing.

What's confusing though is s.20 of the CRA doesn't differentiate between someone who is rejecting an item because they've changed their mind, and someone returning a faulty item. You'd expect that customers would have more rights where the item is faulty and the trader would have to arrange collection, whereas if they've just changed their mind it might be reasonable to expect them to return the item themselves.

As @Okell points out s.20(7)(b) says "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" and I haven't agreed to return the goods, so it appears that all I have to do is make them available for collection (again this section refers to "rejected goods" and doesn't say anything about the reason why they're being rejected).

S.20(8) somewhat muddies the waters though, as it says "Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them...". If the consumer does have a duty to return the goods, rather than just making them available for collection, it seems hard to see how that could require the trader to send the customer the money in advance to cover the return costs, rather than reimbursing them afterwards.

Okell

doveman said:

A_Geordie said:

I'm going to go against @dumpster_fire2025 and @DullGreyGuy suggestion that the onus is on the consumer to pay for the cost of return and then have it refunded afterwards. Number of reasons for this: 

1. It is true that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not explicitly say the trader has to arrange collection, but arranging for the return and paying for the cost of return are two distinct and separate obligations. The phrase the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them is evidence that the trader is responsible for paying the cost of return, not the consumer, and then having to recover the money after the fact. The explanatory notes says ... This includes the trader paying postal costs. This applies whether or not the consumer has agreed to return the goods, as mentioned in subsection (7). 

2. The phrase 'bear costs' is very commonly used in litigation, particularly settlement agreements. It is accepted to mean that each side is responsible for paying their own costs, but never has it meant that each side must pay the other's sides costs and then invoice them for a refund of the amount afterwards. Likewise, it is also used in commercial agreements and again, the word 'bear' is taken to mean that you are responsible for paying, not anyone else. Given this is consumer friendly legislation, why would this meaning be interpreted more restrictively than in a B2B setting? 

3. Forcing the consumer to pay the return costs has the ability to restrict or at least create potentially dificult barriers to the consumer obtaining a refund  contrary to section 31(2) of the CRA, which says: 

... a term of a contract to supply goods is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would—
(a) exclude or restrict a right or remedy in respect of a liability under a provision listed in subsection (1),
(b) make such a right or remedy or its enforcement subject to a restrictive or onerous condition,
(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy, or
(d) exclude or restrict rules of evidence or procedure.

It is not always possible to arrange a delivery for large or heavy items or other items that are fragile or otherwise expensive. As we know, most couriers have a long list of exlusions as to what they can or cannot carry. Even if the consumer was able to overcome the courier's list of exlusions, it might be a cost they cannot afford or may take some time if money is tight. 

4. If Parliament really intended that it was the consumer's obligation to arrange and pay for the cost of returning faulty goods, then they would not have said that the trader must bear the return costs and there would have been language along the lines of the consumer must return the goods which includes the costs associated with return and those return costs will be refunded by the trader. 

By way of example, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (also known as the distance selling rights and including the right to cancel for change of mind), Regulation 35 says:

(5) The consumer must bear the direct cost of returning goods under paragraph (2), unless—

(a)the trader has agreed to bear those costs, or

(b) the trader failed to provide the consumer with the information about the consumer bearing those costs, required by paragraph (m) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

As above, it states the consumer is responsible for the costs of returning the goods. The language in the CRA (which is concerned with faulty goods or services rather than a right to change your mind) states the trader should bear the costs of returning the goods, which is the complete opposite of what is stated in the CCRs. Logically, it would be impossible to suggest both statements mean the same thing, which is that the consumer bears the cost of return in both instances. 

Simply put, if a contract says the consumer must return the goods, that's fine they can make arrangements for the return but the trader must pay for the return, not the consumer. Anyhting indicating the consumer bearning the cost of the return and being refunded back to the consumer is, in my opinion contrary to the CRA.

... What's confusing though is s.20 of the CRA doesn't differentiate between someone who is rejecting an item because they've changed their mind, and someone returning a faulty item. You'd expect that customers would have more rights where the item is faulty and the trader would have to arrange collection, whereas if they've just changed their mind it might be reasonable to expect them to return the item themselves...

But you aren't returning the goods for a change of mind, you are returning them because they are faulty.

Faulty goods are covered by the CRA, and s20 of that says that - unless you and the trader have agreed otherwise - all you have to do as the consumer is to make the faulty item available for collection by the trader.

Change of mind/cancellation of a distance contract isn't covered by the CRA, it's covered by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

Under those regulations the trader is fully entitled to unilaterally make the consumer responsible for the return of items when a distance contract is cancelled (eg change of mind).

So yes - consumers do have "better" rights in respect of faulty goods over cancelled/change of mind returns.