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

born_again

That's just your standard disclaimer 
It may be, but when talking about such as this, as you brought up.
They should be 100% certain that they are right.

Which seems to be a issue with the media these days, well if we get it wrong we can issue a apology.

starving_artist

Another issue is that the rules relating to delivery charges are often ignored.  As I understand it if you return an item (within the legal period) the retailer should refund the original delivery costs also.  I've had a few experiences when I have had to chase this and the retailer has only reluctantly agreed it 'as a goodwill gesture'.

walliscote

As the MSE article stated if the same return rules apply to the sales items then M&S also should be on the list. For the sales items they only give 14 days to return them. Their staff at the tills remind me of it each time when I buy something on sale there.

Pollycat

walliscote said:

As the MSE article stated if the same return rules apply to the sales items then M&S also should be on the list. For the sales items they only give 14 days to return them. Their staff at the tills remind me of it each time when I buy something on sale there.

I thought this was relating to online purchases.

born_again

walliscote said:

As the MSE article stated if the same return rules apply to the sales items then M&S also should be on the list. For the sales items they only give 14 days to return them. Their staff at the tills remind me of it each time when I buy something on sale there.

Unless they are faulty. Then you have no right to return a sale or normal in person purchase.
The fact they allow a 14 day period is over & above your consumer rights. So be thankful that they are generous. 

mummystudent

It’s interesting that Martin has been talking about this this week, for the last 3 weeks I’ve been dealing with this very thing. Having received a faulty watch strap from First Class Watches I was told that I had no legal rights as watch straps are exempt from warranties. This was all well within the first 28 days. Even when I pointed them toward the Consumer Act they continued to attempt to mislead me; passing the buck to the manufacturer, trying to force a replacement on me. 

Sometimes not even knowing your rights is enough.  

born_again

mummystudent said:

It’s interesting that Martin has been talking about this this week, for the last 3 weeks I’ve been dealing with this very thing. Having received a faulty watch strap from First Class Watches I was told that I had no legal rights as watch straps are exempt from warranties. This was all well within the first 28 days. Even when I pointed them toward the Consumer Act they continued to attempt to mislead me; passing the buck to the manufacturer, trying to force a replacement on me. 

Sometimes not even knowing your rights is enough.  

Warranties have nothing to do with consumer rights. Warranties are over & above & offered by the manufacture of the item. Which you have to comply with their terms to claim under.

A warranty on a watch strap would be unusual, unless it is a very expensive one.

Seems ML is not getting the message across 🤷‍♀️

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

with foreign companies I suspect there could be a deliberate reason for that.

Sorry just to clarify, unless the State of California has consumer law requiring something other than 

"If you wish to return a product, please do so within 30 days from the ship date for a refund." 
Then ME have missed the fact that the contract isn't governed by our laws and may very well not be doing anything wrong.

I have wondered what's to stop any company saying the contract s governed by the laws of Timbuktu to completely avoid UK consumer rights but I guess there some legal answer to that one. 

A_Geordie said:  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.

Yes indeed but the CCRs are written in very basic language and this stuff should be template, especially for big companies, given non-compliance opens them up to longer cancellation periods and no right to reduce the refund you'd think they'd get it right but most seem more concerned with deterring you from returning anything in the first instance.

Which is ironic given these big companies are the ones who originally pushed the idea of buying 20 pairs of shoes and making it so easy to send 19 of them back, reap what you sow I guess.