Is the company responsible for collecting large faulty items?

Jenni_D

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

Okell

Jenni_D said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

Ah.....    Good point.   

red_boots2

Jenni_D said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

They sell on eBay and Amazon as well. Quick Google shows they're essentially a wholesaler for a number of different Chinese brands, but do seem to have a registered UK address.

Suspect the issue could well be Ali Express, as I have bought from them on both eBay and Amazon and haven't had any issues when needing to return items - in the case of eBay they simply sent me a replacement out as the cost of posting the original back was so expensive for them.

DullGreyGuy

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.

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.

However operationally thats how it works... there are retailers that arrange for the return of an item under the CCR but then deduct the cost of the return from the refund which is the mirror of the consumer having to arrange the return but then being refunded for it despite both peaces of legislation stating "bearing costs". 

"Bear the cost" simply means they have responsibility for the cost, its not as nuanced as saying they must directly pay it themselves and in no way can get another party to do it and then refund them etc. Its also not even on an ultimate basis, in Marley -v- Rawlings & Others which was a contested will where the deceased had disinherited their biological sons (Rawlings) and instead left everything to Marley but the solicitors had errored and the parents had signed each other's wills and not their own.

The judge stated that the solicitor should bear all the cost of the will dispute process because it was their error that raised the question on the validity of the wills however its the solicitors PI insurers that actually paid the money, who the judgement discusses and doesnt change the language that the bearer of the cost is the solicitor even though the insurer will pay. 

soolin

Jenni_D said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

I suspect this question will be the one needing to be answered before any further advice can be offered. If this has come from overseas then I'm sure regulars are well aware of the issues generally with returns not ever showing as being 'delivered'.

DullGreyGuy

soolin said:

Jenni_D said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

I suspect this question will be the one needing to be answered before any further advice can be offered. If this has come from overseas then I'm sure regulars are well aware of the issues generally with returns not ever showing as being 'delivered'.

It's a company that has been discussed on here before, in that case they told the person to return it to their UK warehouse. 

doveman

Jenni_D said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

The seller is Aosom MHSTAR UK Store who are registered in the UK and ship from the UK, as shown on this page https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008599315809.html?spm=a2g0o.refund_spm.0.0.5f8872e4aecSzA&_gl=1*kfdz4l*_gcl_au*MTczNTY1MzEwNi4xNzUwNzc1MzM2*_ga*MTkwNTI2MzUxNS4xNzUwNzc1MzM2*_ga_VED1YSGNC7*czE3NTE1NDI0NzQkbzkkZzEkdDE3NTE1NDQ4MDckajYwJGwwJGgw#nav-specification

This screenshot shows their registered business address, but the return instructions from AliExpress tell me to return it to a different address, Joao 08002404050, Northampton UNIT 2, NORTHAMPTON CROSS ROAD, NORTHAMPTON, North Northamptonshire, England, GB, NN4 9FH

I also note in AliExpress' T&C they say that they just provide "transaction services" and aren't the seller.

A_Geordie

DullGreyGuy said:

However operationally thats how it works... there are retailers that arrange for the return of an item under the CCR but then deduct the cost of the return from the refund which is the mirror of the consumer having to arrange the return but then being refunded for it despite both peaces of legislation stating "bearing costs". 

"Bear the cost" simply means they have responsibility for the cost, its not as nuanced as saying they must directly pay it themselves and in no way can get another party to do it and then refund them etc. Its also not even on an ultimate basis, in Marley -v- Rawlings & Others which was a contested will where the deceased had disinherited their biological sons (Rawlings) and instead left everything to Marley but the solicitors had errored and the parents had signed each other's wills and not their own.

The judge stated that the solicitor should bear all the cost of the will dispute process because it was their error that raised the question on the validity of the wills however its the solicitors PI insurers that actually paid the money, who the judgement discusses and doesnt change the language that the bearer of the cost is the solicitor even though the insurer will pay. 

A judge making a statement that a law firm bears the cost in a judgment cannot be used to make the same argument when interpreting a contract or legislation. It's all about context, so it is nuanced.

The reference to bearing costs is scattered in a number of places in the CRA, including: 

Section 23 (Right to repair or replacement for goods)

(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must:
...
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Section 43 (Right to repair or replacement for digital cotent)

(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the digital content, the trader must:
...
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Section 46 (Remedy for damage to device or digital content)

(3) To repair the damage in accordance with this subsection, the trader must:
...
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in repairing the damage (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Section 55 (Right to repear performance)

(2) If the consumer requires such repeat performance, the trader:
...
(b) must bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour or materials)

If the interpretation is that the consumer must pay to return the goods and obtain a refund from the trader once they've received it, then surely the same interpretation must apply in all of the above sections, which is if the consumer wants a repair or a replacement, the consumer is going to have to pay for it first and then be refunded. I am sure we can agree that kind of interpetation was not intended by the CRA where it concerns faulty goods or services - so why should that specific section be interpreted differently to the rest of the other sections?

Reading the legislation as a whole and the context that it is consumer protection legislation, the bearing of costs ought to be taken to mean that the trader is responsible for paying for the postage costs, in much the same way the trader is responsible for bearing the cost of repairs and returning the repaired goods, not the consumer having to pay upfront and recover afterwards. If the customer has to pay upfront and obtain a refund, they are essentially having to 'claim' back that money from the trader, which is not what 'bearing costs' has been legally interpreted to mean. 

dumpster_fire2025

The AliExpress rules which would govern this transaction state "please contact us immediately and return the item" which I'd say is an agreement that the buyer is to return the item, not "make them available for collection."

https://www.aliexpress.com/ssr/300000437/PinKTaDpEb?spm=a2g0o.service-mindset.sitefooter.3.7739CECCCECCEE&disableNav=YES&pha_manifest=ssr&_immersiveMode=true

dumpster_fire2025

doveman said:

Jenni_D said:

doveman said:

I bought a portable air con from Aosom MHSTAR UK Store via AliExpress

AliExpress is a Chinese marketplace, their version of a cross between Amazon and eBay. Have you been given a UK returns address? Are you sure you actually bought from a UK business?

The seller is Aosom MHSTAR UK Store who are registered in the UK and ship from the UK, as shown on this page https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008599315809.html?spm=a2g0o.refund_spm.0.0.5f8872e4aecSzA&_gl=1*kfdz4l*_gcl_au*MTczNTY1MzEwNi4xNzUwNzc1MzM2*_ga*MTkwNTI2MzUxNS4xNzUwNzc1MzM2*_ga_VED1YSGNC7*czE3NTE1NDI0NzQkbzkkZzEkdDE3NTE1NDQ4MDckajYwJGwwJGgw#nav-specification

This screenshot shows their registered business address, but the return instructions from AliExpress tell me to return it to a different address, Joao 08002404050, Northampton UNIT 2, NORTHAMPTON CROSS ROAD, NORTHAMPTON, North Northamptonshire, England, GB, NN4 9FH

I also note in AliExpress' T&C they say that they just provide "transaction services" and aren't the seller.

Googling that address does show it as being registered to the same business, MH Star UK Ltd.

It's not particularly unusual that the place that handles customer returns is different to the place that ships out brand new units. At least it's a UK address rather than one in China which would probably cost more to ship back than the item is worth, and would probably mysteriously disappear on it's way back anyway.