MSE News: Retail Wrongs: MSE reveals 30 retailers MISLEAD shoppers about their legal online returns

MSE_Helen_K

New research by MoneySavingExpert.com (MSE) found that at least 30 big retailers are misleading shoppers over their statutory return rights, and that areas of their websites list harsher criteria than the law requires them to offer...

Read the full story:

'Retail Wrongs: MSE reveals 30 retailers including Selfridges, New Look and The Range MISLEAD shoppers about their legal online returns rights'

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

@MSE_Helen_K

Apparently the Benefit site is governed by the laws of the State of California? 

A lot of terms you highlight mention goods being returned in their original condition which can't be imposed for cancellation of the contract under the regs. 

Jessops for example says 

[You must] return the product in its original, re-saleable and undamaged state/condition and in its original packaging together with all accessories, packaging, instructions and any other items included with it at time of sale (including free gifts). If you have opened the box to examine the product you must have done so without damaging or marking the product or packaging;

If you do not comply with the above conditions, we cannot refund or cancel your order. We may also (at our absolute discretion) seek to reduce or reject your refund.

This doesn't comply. 

Many companies try to exclude items they can't, Robert Dyas says you can't cancel for Electrical/Technical products which have been unsealed, I'm not even sure which technical is supposed to mean nor which limit they are relying upon to exclude electrical items, they also try to exclude bedding (which they can't) and mattresses which according to EU case law they can't. Regarding Hush I'm not sure how soap is perishable? 

Lack of a model cancellation form is another common issue.

Perhaps worth noting in the article that the consumer has to make a clear statement they are cancellation their contract, if the consumer follows the retailer's additional policy this can have any (fair) terms.

I'm pretty sure of the 423 retailers you looked at more than 30 aren't complying, in the politest way possible I don't think the article or the research was very through. 

Lastly the article says

The rules also apply to goods purchased via 'click and collect'.  

This has been of debate here (threads about Argos saying click and collect isn't a distance contract IIRC), whilst I would say C&C is distance and so right to cancel applies, what is your source for the above statement please? 

ic

I had appliances delivered by Marks Electrical. On installation a couple of weeks later we discovered one of the ovens had a dent in the control panel. Marks Electrical tried the "sorry all damages must be reported within 7 days, farewell" routine. I then quoted back the law and they swapped it a few days later at no cost. Annoys me how they try it on like that.

gbzrjy

I notice that Fat Face are not on your list however their website states that sale items need to be returned within 15 days.

A_Geordie

@MSE_Helen_K

I saw Mr Lewis on TV this morning talking about this issue, so I was curious and decided to have a look myself. Of the handful that I've checked on the list, seems to me not everyone should be named and shamed here.

Boden's website says this:



Cafe Nero says this:



Carluccio's says this: 



I haven't gone further than that but unless these companies have suddenly scrambled to update their online terms and conditions in the last 24 hours or so since the article was published, it would appear that the MSE research is flawed - Perhaps it could be said that MSE and Mr Lewis are making false claims against these companies.

Come on, if you're going to do some research and publish something, at least make sure you review all of the terms and conditions and not dive straight into the link that says returns and refunds which is where you seem to have taken the references to formulate your research.

Somewhat worrying that consumers rely on Mr Lewis and MSE for things like this and you can't even do the basics. If I am indeed right, let's hope these companies don't suffer serious financial harm as a result...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

Boden's website says this:

To be fair you can't have terms that don't comply and then add a "these terms don't affect your rights" statement in order to cover your short coming, they do mention cancelling in 14 days but ask you to follow their return policy where they limit sales items to be returned within 14 days of delivery.

Cafe Nero doesn't comply as the "Please follow the returns procedure." leads you to a page stating 30 days from placing the order for return, you have 14 days to cancel from receipt + 14 to return from cancelling, if you placed the order but it took more than 2 days to be delivered the timeframe they give is shorter than the regs. (Plus they state "All items must be returned in original condition with all packaging, tags and seals in place" which doesn't comply either).

Carluccios does comply in their T&Cs, MSE has only looked at the return policy, interesting point in your area perhaps, if we were to say the 14 day policy is their store policy separate to the right to cancel, as that policy offers less than rights is it misleading to either 1) exist in the first place 2) be prominent on the website whilst info on cancelling the contract is buried?

I understand some companies offer their own policy that offers more than the regs (maybe more time or say free returns) but in the case of Carluccios that policy on the return page offers nothing extra, only differences are restrictive (less time + requirement to be in original condition).

A_Geordie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

To be fair you can't have terms that don't comply and then add a "these terms don't affect your rights" statement in order to cover your short coming, they do mention cancelling in 14 days but ask you to follow their return policy where they limit sales items to be returned within 14 days of delivery.

Well I suppose that's an opinion everyone is going to take a different view on and I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this one. The phrase has been used for decades and probably before my time also yet there is no legally binding precedent that I am aware of that makes the use of this phrase unlawful. I vaguely recall the CMA coming to the conclusion some years ago that an argument calling this an unfair term or notice is unlikely to be successful and they never pursued it, instead flexing their authority to put pressure on businesses to change the langage in their terms. You could also say that any argument this phrase is somehow unfair is redundant considering the general public are becoming more aware of their consumer rights through TV, social media and the internet generally. 

As for Cafe

The common theme I see from all of this is the assumption that all of these business are doing consumer only transactions which is clearly not the case. Even if the websites make it clear about consumer rights, the MSE article is clutching on to certain words and then claiming its misleading without proper context.

Case in point, I randomly looked at the Freeman's website, which has a statement on the CCRs under the cancellation policy section, does not signpost elsewhere to the T&Cs and yet MSE have decided to latch on to a section under the returns policy that says their standard returns policy is 14 days, completely omitting the fact that Freemans already have a section on consumer rights cancellation. Yes, their standard policy is 14 days to return but looked at as a whole, that policy applies to those who are not consumers. I should also point out in that returns policy section it also says your statutory rights are not affected but we already covered that.

Joules is another example which has a similar statement to Freemans (and apparently called out in 2018), very lear on the CCRs and yet right underneath hat statement, MSE choose to focus on a sentence which they say is likely to mislead a consumer despite the CCRs being prominently clear just about that statement.

The terms and conditions should be read as a whole, not in part or selectively extracting excerpts to suit the narrative which is what I feel the MSE article is doing here. The more I look at it, the more holes it has along with some shoddy research work. Be interesting to see if trading standards actually do anything or if some of these retailers stand their ground and argue what is currently written is sufficient (which I would agree) and if you don't like it, then sue and best hope you win. 

dumpster_fire2025

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

A_Geordie said:

Boden's website says this:

To be fair you can't have terms that don't comply and then add a "these terms don't affect your rights" statement in order to cover your short coming, they do mention cancelling in 14 days but ask you to follow their return policy where they limit sales items to be returned within 14 days of delivery.

Cafe Nero doesn't comply as the "Please follow the returns procedure." leads you to a page stating 30 days from placing the order for return, you have 14 days to cancel from receipt + 14 to return from cancelling, if you placed the order but it took more than 2 days to be delivered the timeframe they give is shorter than the regs. (Plus they state "All items must be returned in original condition with all packaging, tags and seals in place" which doesn't comply either).

Carluccios does comply in their T&Cs, MSE has only looked at the return policy, interesting point in your area perhaps, if we were to say the 14 day policy is their store policy separate to the right to cancel, as that policy offers less than rights is it misleading to either 1) exist in the first place 2) be prominent on the website whilst info on cancelling the contract is buried?

I understand some companies offer their own policy that offers more than the regs (maybe more time or say free returns) but in the case of Carluccios that policy on the return page offers nothing extra, only differences are restrictive (less time + requirement to be in original condition).

"Your statutory rights are not affected" has been used for yonks as A_Geordie says.

It literally means "Here are our T&C's but they do not supersede your legal rights" I don't see any legal reason why you can't say that.

Can you provide any case law for your claim that this is unlawful?

born_again

A_Geordie said:

Somewhat worrying that consumers rely on Mr Lewis and MSE for things like this and you can't even do the basics. If I am indeed right, let's hope these companies don't suffer serious financial harm as a result...

All nicely covered below..

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

To be fair you can't have terms that don't comply and then add a "these terms don't affect your rights" statement in order to cover your short coming, they do mention cancelling in 14 days but ask you to follow their return policy where they limit sales items to be returned within 14 days of delivery.

Well I suppose that's an opinion everyone is going to take a different view on and I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this one. The phrase has been used for decades and probably before my time also yet there is no legally binding precedent that I am aware of that makes the use of this phrase unlawful.

The wording is generally fine and is used to note additional policies are not in place of statutory rights so go in a shop and see

"We offer refunds for 28 days. This does not affect statutory rights"

is fine because the store are saying they offer voluntarily refunds for any reason within 28 days but if on day 29 you find out the goods are not of satisfactory quality your statutory rights are not affected and thus you are still entitled to a remedy.

What a store can't have is a sign saying:

"Everything sold as seen. No refunds. Ever. For anything or any reason. This does not affect statutory rights"

Because it very clearly does affect your rights and thus it's misleading.

I'm sure the clause in the terms highlighted for Boden is there for the legitimate reason but what it can't be is a fall back/get out clause for providing information that doesn't comply with rights. 

The mistake the company have made is not detailing the right to cancel in full in their T&Cs page and instead trying to tie it in to their general return policy which has restrictions the regs do not and thus it doesn't comply. 

A_Geordie said:

Case in point, I randomly looked at the Freeman's website, which has a statement on the CCRs under the cancellation policy section, does not signpost elsewhere to the T&Cs and yet MSE have decided to latch on to a section under the returns policy that says their standard returns policy is 14 days, completely omitting the fact that Freemans already have a section on consumer rights cancellation. Yes, their standard policy is 14 days to return but looked at as a whole, that policy applies to those who are not consumers. I should also point out in that returns policy section it also says your statutory rights are not affected but we already covered that.

Yes indeed you are correct that Freeman's comply with the CCRs, you are also correct that these sites may not be consumer only purchases and again correct that MSE are not looking at the full picture when drawing up the article*, as above Benefit doesn't even appear to be a UK company, but in the case of Boden and Cafe Nero they don't comply regardless.

*It is a shame because MSE make a legitimate point (that many retailer's don't comply with the regs), just their case put forward is poorly constructed denting the credibility and distracting from the main point.  

dumpster_fire2025 said:

It literally means "Here are our T&C's but they do not supersede your legal rights" I don't see any legal reason why you can't say that.

Can you provide any case law for your claim that this is unlawful?

See above, I've never said any such thing. 

A_Geordie

Just to be clear, I do agree that some of these websites are absolutely flouting the rules and with foreign companies I suspect there could be a deliberate reason for that. I am also pro-consumer all the way, but there needs to be a balance and my concern is that there seems to be a continuing trend of rights groups dictating (or at least the suggestion of) how companies should do or say things that are above and beyond what he law says.

Typically, a court will consider whether something is misleading against the reasonably well-informed observer and some of the things we are talking about, I'm just not convinced they are enough to meet that criteria.

I have also noticed over the last 5 years or so both in the UK and EU, that the courts are starting to reject what might be considered misleading or minor infringements for various reasons. The risk is that more we push, the outcome might not be what we want which could set a precedent, or companies with their almost endless amount of cash will lobby for change, and might just get it. But hey, it is what it is.

*It is a shame because MSE make a legitimate point (that many retailer's don't comply with the regs), just their case put forward is poorly constructed denting the credibility and distracting from the main point.  

I also agree. 

born_again said:

All nicely covered below..

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

That's just your standard disclaimer that every website should have, but not all disclaimers are valid. I am not questioning the validity of the disclaimer or MSE's liability, but rather criticising the contents of the article, particularly since Mr Lewis went on national TV to repeat the findings of the article. I find it a little embarrassing standing behind something that is in of itself misleading and as lunatic mentioned, hurts the credibility of the research and its intended purpose.