Refund refused due to excessive wear

Undervalued

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Renfrewman said:

Apparently contracts for necessities such as food or clothing may/can be binding for under 18's.

So...........  you think rock climbing shoes qualify as a necessity...?

Difficult or dangerous to climb rocks without!

No drink apart from water is a necessity, taken literally! Where do you draw the line? 

It's not me drawing the line... although I doubt a majority of members of parliament would have considered rock climbing shoes to be a necessity rather than a luxury...

Renfrewman said:

Okell said:

Renfrewman said:

Apparently contracts for necessities such as food or clothing may/can be binding for under 18's.

So...........  you think rock climbing shoes qualify as a necessity...?

The OP's son obviously does.

As above...

Indeed. However unless a high enough court to set a legally binding precedent has ruled on this point, a County Court judge hearing this case may draw the line in a different place to you (and me).

Renfrewman

Ergates said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Renfrewman said:

Apparently contracts for necessities such as food or clothing may/can be binding for under 18's.

So...........  you think rock climbing shoes qualify as a necessity...?

Difficult or dangerous to climb rocks without!

No drink apart from water is a necessity, taken literally! Where do you draw the line? 

Somewhere before sports equipment.

£300 trainers when trainers can be had for £10-20?

Okell

Undervalued said:

Pippa11 said:

I have emailed them again using the very helpful advice above, I’m not convinced it will make any difference. I assume I should refuse receipt of the shoes or does it not matter? 

Keep in mind that if you do you are increasing your gamble. Your son presumably knows other rock climbers? How easy would it be to sell them "shop soiled" for say 80 quid??  [Good point.  that might be the best way of dealing with this issue - although it obviously incurs a certain loss depending on what they can be sold for]

Otherwise it looks as if you will have to sue to try and recover the £124. To do that will involve risking a smallish court fee up front (which you should get back if you win). You may have to risk more on enforcement action if you win but they still don't pay - which is surprisingly common. Plus there is your time for which you are unlikely to get any compensation even if you win.

Your call.....  [As you say it's up to the OP if they think it's worth suing.  I've already told them that they don't need to make any difficult decisions until R+R have refused to comply with a Letter Before Action - in which case the OP needs to decide whether to take it further or just surrender and lose £124.  But it hasn't reached that stage yet.  TBH I'd be surprised if R+R refused to comply with a court judgment against them - but of course they might not comply, in which case it could be more expensive.  I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?  The more R+R dispute any claim the more time the OP has to spend on arguing it and the more the OP can claim]

Another option is to try again and reach some kind of compromise.   [It seems to be R+R that won't compromise.  From the OP: "... I accept a small amount of rubbing of the sole may have occurred and asked if we could reach an agreement where they deduct a small amount from the refund for the damage caused. They refused."   Of course nothing to stop OP from trying to reach a compromise, but it seems to be R+R who have refused from the outset?]

Even assuming all the "legal advice" here is correct, you are the one who will have to do the work and take the risk.  [Fair comment but do you think what the OP has been advised here is incorrect?  Even if it is, what else do you advise?  Nothing that has been said so far puts the OP at any further risk than losing £124 and spending an hour or so drafting a letter or two.  Your alternative course of action - to resell the shoes - puts the OP at risk of a certain loss unless they can sell the shoes for full price.  Which of course they might be able to do - or might not... ]

See my comments above in bold italic.

I accept that the OP's best course of action now might simply be to resell the shoes and cut their losses.  That might be the most sensible thing to do... or might not...

I think what particularly annoys me is R+R's repeated references to their own T&Cs and their own return policy with no acknowledgement of a consumer's right to cancel under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Also their apparent refusal to accept the proposition that obviously the shoes are not now "unsellable" and they have not been reduced in value by £124.

Also their apparent refusal to accept that because their T&Cs do not - in my view - adequately inform the consumer of their right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, that they are not permitted under the regs to make any deduction for loss of value from a refund.

More particularly I don't like their T&Cs misleading consumers by wrongly trying to make them believe that items like books, CDs and DVDs cannot be returned.  Of course they can.  I suspect that even telling consumers that those items cannot be returned may be a criminal offence insofar as it misleads consumers as to what their actual statutory rights are - but I'm not sure how the OP could tell R+R about that without it sounding like blackmail!

It's entirely up to the OP (and their son) if they want to pursue this further.  The OP has been told that only if it gets as far as a Letter Before Action and only if R+R refuse to comply with that LBA do they need to make any difficult decisions that might involve further expenditure and risk.

Undervalued

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Pippa11 said:

I have emailed them again using the very helpful advice above, I’m not convinced it will make any difference. I assume I should refuse receipt of the shoes or does it not matter? 

Keep in mind that if you do you are increasing your gamble. Your son presumably knows other rock climbers? How easy would it be to sell them "shop soiled" for say 80 quid??  [Good point.  that might be the best way of dealing with this issue - although it obviously incurs a certain loss depending on what they can be sold for]

Otherwise it looks as if you will have to sue to try and recover the £124. To do that will involve risking a smallish court fee up front (which you should get back if you win). You may have to risk more on enforcement action if you win but they still don't pay - which is surprisingly common. Plus there is your time for which you are unlikely to get any compensation even if you win.

Your call.....  [As you say it's up to the OP if they think it's worth suing.  I've already told them that they don't need to make any difficult decisions until R+R have refused to comply with a Letter Before Action - in which case the OP needs to decide whether to take it further or just surrender and lose £124.  But it hasn't reached that stage yet.  TBH I'd be surprised if R+R refused to comply with a court judgment against them - but of course they might not comply, in which case it could be more expensive.  I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?  The more R+R dispute any claim the more time the OP has to spend on arguing it and the more the OP can claim]

Another option is to try again and reach some kind of compromise.   [It seems to be R+R that won't compromise.  From the OP: "... I accept a small amount of rubbing of the sole may have occurred and asked if we could reach an agreement where they deduct a small amount from the refund for the damage caused. They refused."   Of course nothing to stop OP from trying to reach a compromise, but it seems to be R+R who have refused from the outset?]

Even assuming all the "legal advice" here is correct, you are the one who will have to do the work and take the risk.  [Fair comment but do you think what the OP has been advised here is incorrect?  Even if it is, what else do you advise?  Nothing that has been said so far puts the OP at any further risk than losing £124 and spending an hour or so drafting a letter or two.  Your alternative course of action - to resell the shoes - puts the OP at risk of a certain loss unless they can sell the shoes for full price.  Which of course they might be able to do - or might not... ]

See my comments above in bold italic.

I accept that the OP's best course of action now might simply be to resell the shoes and cut their losses.  That might be the most sensible thing to do... or might not...

I think what particularly annoys me is R+R's repeated references to their own T&Cs and their own return policy with no acknowledgement of a consumer's right to cancel under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Also their apparent refusal to accept the proposition that obviously the shoes are not now "unsellable" and they have not been reduced in value by £124.

Also their apparent refusal to accept that because their T&Cs do not - in my view - adequately inform the consumer of their right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, that they are not permitted under the regs to make any deduction for loss of value from a refund.

More particularly I don't like their T&Cs misleading consumers by wrongly trying to make them believe that items like books, CDs and DVDs cannot be returned.  Of course they can.  I suspect that even telling consumers that those items cannot be returned may be a criminal offence insofar as it misleads consumers as to what their actual statutory rights are - but I'm not sure how the OP could tell R+R about that without it sounding like blackmail!

It's entirely up to the OP (and their son) if they want to pursue this further.  The OP has been told that only if it gets as far as a Letter Before Action and only if R+R refuse to comply with that LBA do they need to make any difficult decisions that might involve further expenditure and risk.

From your bold text......

I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?

My understanding is that it that whilst it can be awarded, up to that figure, to a winning claimant at the judge's discretion, I don't think it is automatic by any means.

Pippa11

I’m still getting nowhere. I emailed them setting out everything I had been advised to and finished with asking them to let me know about their complaint procedures (as there’s nothing in their website) and received this: 

“Your complaint has been received and forwarded to senior management, who have been made aware of this. And are supporting our conclusions.

My colleague has explained and refuted the points you have raised. And nothing has changed regarding those issues as far as we are concerned.”

so I guess a letter and then I need to decide whether to take it to court. I am not someone who likes to admit defeat when I feel an injustice has been done! 

born_again

Retailers do not have to have a complaints procedure.

Okell

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Pippa11 said:

I have emailed them again using the very helpful advice above, I’m not convinced it will make any difference. I assume I should refuse receipt of the shoes or does it not matter? 

Keep in mind that if you do you are increasing your gamble. Your son presumably knows other rock climbers? How easy would it be to sell them "shop soiled" for say 80 quid??  [Good point.  that might be the best way of dealing with this issue - although it obviously incurs a certain loss depending on what they can be sold for]

Otherwise it looks as if you will have to sue to try and recover the £124. To do that will involve risking a smallish court fee up front (which you should get back if you win). You may have to risk more on enforcement action if you win but they still don't pay - which is surprisingly common. Plus there is your time for which you are unlikely to get any compensation even if you win.

Your call.....  [As you say it's up to the OP if they think it's worth suing.  I've already told them that they don't need to make any difficult decisions until R+R have refused to comply with a Letter Before Action - in which case the OP needs to decide whether to take it further or just surrender and lose £124.  But it hasn't reached that stage yet.  TBH I'd be surprised if R+R refused to comply with a court judgment against them - but of course they might not comply, in which case it could be more expensive.  I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?  The more R+R dispute any claim the more time the OP has to spend on arguing it and the more the OP can claim]

Another option is to try again and reach some kind of compromise.   [It seems to be R+R that won't compromise.  From the OP: "... I accept a small amount of rubbing of the sole may have occurred and asked if we could reach an agreement where they deduct a small amount from the refund for the damage caused. They refused."   Of course nothing to stop OP from trying to reach a compromise, but it seems to be R+R who have refused from the outset?]

Even assuming all the "legal advice" here is correct, you are the one who will have to do the work and take the risk.  [Fair comment but do you think what the OP has been advised here is incorrect?  Even if it is, what else do you advise?  Nothing that has been said so far puts the OP at any further risk than losing £124 and spending an hour or so drafting a letter or two.  Your alternative course of action - to resell the shoes - puts the OP at risk of a certain loss unless they can sell the shoes for full price.  Which of course they might be able to do - or might not... ]

See my comments above in bold italic.

I accept that the OP's best course of action now might simply be to resell the shoes and cut their losses.  That might be the most sensible thing to do... or might not...

I think what particularly annoys me is R+R's repeated references to their own T&Cs and their own return policy with no acknowledgement of a consumer's right to cancel under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Also their apparent refusal to accept the proposition that obviously the shoes are not now "unsellable" and they have not been reduced in value by £124.

Also their apparent refusal to accept that because their T&Cs do not - in my view - adequately inform the consumer of their right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, that they are not permitted under the regs to make any deduction for loss of value from a refund.

More particularly I don't like their T&Cs misleading consumers by wrongly trying to make them believe that items like books, CDs and DVDs cannot be returned.  Of course they can.  I suspect that even telling consumers that those items cannot be returned may be a criminal offence insofar as it misleads consumers as to what their actual statutory rights are - but I'm not sure how the OP could tell R+R about that without it sounding like blackmail!

It's entirely up to the OP (and their son) if they want to pursue this further.  The OP has been told that only if it gets as far as a Letter Before Action and only if R+R refuse to comply with that LBA do they need to make any difficult decisions that might involve further expenditure and risk.

From your bold text......

I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?

My understanding is that it that whilst it can be awarded, up to that figure, to a winning claimant at the judge's discretion, I don't think it is automatic by any means.

Fair enough - but then if the retailer has drawn the process out by arguing the point and saying they will refund nothing, then isn't the consumer in a very strong position to claim costs for their own time if they then win?  The consumer didn't choose to draw out this process - R+R did.  Why wouldn't a judge exercise discretion in favour of the consumer?

To do otherwise would seem to be the courts discouraging consumers from pursuing their statutory rights.

Look - I'm not saying that the OP would win a case if it got to court, but I think they have a reasonable case to argue.

Reading between the lines you obviously have doubts as to whether the OP's son can get a full refund either (1) on the basis of being a minor and/or (2) on the basis that R+R's T&Cs do not comply with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

If those are your views can you explain such that the OP is in a better position to weigh up the pros and cons as to whether this is worth pursuing, or whether they should just accept R+R's position? 

Undervalued

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Pippa11 said:

I have emailed them again using the very helpful advice above, I’m not convinced it will make any difference. I assume I should refuse receipt of the shoes or does it not matter? 

Keep in mind that if you do you are increasing your gamble. Your son presumably knows other rock climbers? How easy would it be to sell them "shop soiled" for say 80 quid??  [Good point.  that might be the best way of dealing with this issue - although it obviously incurs a certain loss depending on what they can be sold for]

Otherwise it looks as if you will have to sue to try and recover the £124. To do that will involve risking a smallish court fee up front (which you should get back if you win). You may have to risk more on enforcement action if you win but they still don't pay - which is surprisingly common. Plus there is your time for which you are unlikely to get any compensation even if you win.

Your call.....  [As you say it's up to the OP if they think it's worth suing.  I've already told them that they don't need to make any difficult decisions until R+R have refused to comply with a Letter Before Action - in which case the OP needs to decide whether to take it further or just surrender and lose £124.  But it hasn't reached that stage yet.  TBH I'd be surprised if R+R refused to comply with a court judgment against them - but of course they might not comply, in which case it could be more expensive.  I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?  The more R+R dispute any claim the more time the OP has to spend on arguing it and the more the OP can claim]

Another option is to try again and reach some kind of compromise.   [It seems to be R+R that won't compromise.  From the OP: "... I accept a small amount of rubbing of the sole may have occurred and asked if we could reach an agreement where they deduct a small amount from the refund for the damage caused. They refused."   Of course nothing to stop OP from trying to reach a compromise, but it seems to be R+R who have refused from the outset?]

Even assuming all the "legal advice" here is correct, you are the one who will have to do the work and take the risk.  [Fair comment but do you think what the OP has been advised here is incorrect?  Even if it is, what else do you advise?  Nothing that has been said so far puts the OP at any further risk than losing £124 and spending an hour or so drafting a letter or two.  Your alternative course of action - to resell the shoes - puts the OP at risk of a certain loss unless they can sell the shoes for full price.  Which of course they might be able to do - or might not... ]

See my comments above in bold italic.

I accept that the OP's best course of action now might simply be to resell the shoes and cut their losses.  That might be the most sensible thing to do... or might not...

I think what particularly annoys me is R+R's repeated references to their own T&Cs and their own return policy with no acknowledgement of a consumer's right to cancel under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Also their apparent refusal to accept the proposition that obviously the shoes are not now "unsellable" and they have not been reduced in value by £124.

Also their apparent refusal to accept that because their T&Cs do not - in my view - adequately inform the consumer of their right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, that they are not permitted under the regs to make any deduction for loss of value from a refund.

More particularly I don't like their T&Cs misleading consumers by wrongly trying to make them believe that items like books, CDs and DVDs cannot be returned.  Of course they can.  I suspect that even telling consumers that those items cannot be returned may be a criminal offence insofar as it misleads consumers as to what their actual statutory rights are - but I'm not sure how the OP could tell R+R about that without it sounding like blackmail!

It's entirely up to the OP (and their son) if they want to pursue this further.  The OP has been told that only if it gets as far as a Letter Before Action and only if R+R refuse to comply with that LBA do they need to make any difficult decisions that might involve further expenditure and risk.

From your bold text......

I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?

My understanding is that it that whilst it can be awarded, up to that figure, to a winning claimant at the judge's discretion, I don't think it is automatic by any means.

Fair enough - but then if the retailer has drawn the process out by arguing the point and saying they will refund nothing, then isn't the consumer in a very strong position to claim costs for their own time if they then win?  The consumer didn't choose to draw out this process - R+R did.  Why wouldn't a judge exercise discretion in favour of the consumer?

To do otherwise would seem to be the courts discouraging consumers from pursuing their statutory rights.

Look - I'm not saying that the OP would win a case if it got to court, but I think they have a reasonable case to argue.

Reading between the lines you obviously have doubts as to whether the OP's son can get a full refund either (1) on the basis of being a minor and/or (2) on the basis that R+R's T&Cs do not comply with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

If those are your views can you explain such that the OP is in a better position to weigh up the pros and cons as to whether this is worth pursuing, or whether they should just accept R+R's position? 

I have no expert knowledge on that point. On the basis of how I remember the issue being explained earlier it seems to be almost a catch 22.

Had the company knowingly contracted with a minor then I would be more inclined to agree with you. However they didn't. They made it clear in their t & c that buyers must be adults. Despite this the minor bought from them using his debit card (which I think you can get a 13+ (??) but certainly under 18). They had no possible means of checking if every customer is 18+. Unlike a physical shop  where generally anybody who looks under 25 is asked for ID to buy age restricted products, they have no similar option. That seems to me to put any online retailer in an impossible position. It might be solved in the future by digital identity cards but we are not there yet.

This is one aspect were I could see a CC judge looking hard for a way of avoiding penalising the retailer. Judges are human and generally have a sense of justice. At this level it is incredibly rare for a CC judgement in a 100 quid dispute being appealed giving them plenty of scope to find a "fair" grey area. Whether or not these are "essential" clothing might just be the window a sympathetic judge is looking for?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said: (2) on the basis that R+R's T&Cs do not comply with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

This is easiest, the CCRs are clear, no deduction if information requirements not met.

Despite the whole, let's ignore the legislation and say what we think on this board, @Okell similar to the parcel cover situation, I don't see how the court can ignore the clear intention of the legislation. 

Looking at their policy, 

Books, CDs or DVDs - can only be refused if unsealed by the customer after delivery
Consumables, e.g. Food and Batteries - food only if perishable, don't see batteries are exempt, not sure what else consumables is but there is no limit labelled such. 
Underwear - again only if unsealed by the customer
Gift Cards/Vouchers - Don't see they are exempt (physical anyway, not sure about digital if they happen to sell such)

I'm not sure they can refuse Climbing Safety Equipment on safety ground, possibly 100% deduction but their terms state if a rope is uncoiled they won't accept it, I would think a rope can inspected for signs of damage and merely uncoiling it isn't unreasonable to determine the nature and characteristics of the product.  

They say you have 28 days to return and later say if you don't message them they won't refund outward shipping, all very badly worded, as we know it's 14 days beginning the day after delivery to cancel and further 14 to return. 

They do mention reduced refund but twice mention they accept "unused" items which again isn't what the regs dictate.

@Pippa11 could you check emails and paperwork that comes with the shoes to see if cancellation/refunds is mentioned and if so exactly what it says please? 

If their terms were correct I'd say a deduction was permitted but they aren't even doing that, they are just refusing the return! 

Throw in a mention of the DMCC and misleading actions in relation to incorrect information on consumer rights and don't see why there is any sense of justice other than that for the OP. 

For the retailer, racking up more than the wholesale value of the goods is just crazy should they not fold before it gets in front of a judge. 

Okell

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

Undervalued said:

Pippa11 said:

I have emailed them again using the very helpful advice above, I’m not convinced it will make any difference. I assume I should refuse receipt of the shoes or does it not matter? 

Keep in mind that if you do you are increasing your gamble. Your son presumably knows other rock climbers? How easy would it be to sell them "shop soiled" for say 80 quid??  [Good point.  that might be the best way of dealing with this issue - although it obviously incurs a certain loss depending on what they can be sold for]

Otherwise it looks as if you will have to sue to try and recover the £124. To do that will involve risking a smallish court fee up front (which you should get back if you win). You may have to risk more on enforcement action if you win but they still don't pay - which is surprisingly common. Plus there is your time for which you are unlikely to get any compensation even if you win.

Your call.....  [As you say it's up to the OP if they think it's worth suing.  I've already told them that they don't need to make any difficult decisions until R+R have refused to comply with a Letter Before Action - in which case the OP needs to decide whether to take it further or just surrender and lose £124.  But it hasn't reached that stage yet.  TBH I'd be surprised if R+R refused to comply with a court judgment against them - but of course they might not comply, in which case it could be more expensive.  I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?  The more R+R dispute any claim the more time the OP has to spend on arguing it and the more the OP can claim]

Another option is to try again and reach some kind of compromise.   [It seems to be R+R that won't compromise.  From the OP: "... I accept a small amount of rubbing of the sole may have occurred and asked if we could reach an agreement where they deduct a small amount from the refund for the damage caused. They refused."   Of course nothing to stop OP from trying to reach a compromise, but it seems to be R+R who have refused from the outset?]

Even assuming all the "legal advice" here is correct, you are the one who will have to do the work and take the risk.  [Fair comment but do you think what the OP has been advised here is incorrect?  Even if it is, what else do you advise?  Nothing that has been said so far puts the OP at any further risk than losing £124 and spending an hour or so drafting a letter or two.  Your alternative course of action - to resell the shoes - puts the OP at risk of a certain loss unless they can sell the shoes for full price.  Which of course they might be able to do - or might not... ]

See my comments above in bold italic.

I accept that the OP's best course of action now might simply be to resell the shoes and cut their losses.  That might be the most sensible thing to do... or might not...

I think what particularly annoys me is R+R's repeated references to their own T&Cs and their own return policy with no acknowledgement of a consumer's right to cancel under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Also their apparent refusal to accept the proposition that obviously the shoes are not now "unsellable" and they have not been reduced in value by £124.

Also their apparent refusal to accept that because their T&Cs do not - in my view - adequately inform the consumer of their right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, that they are not permitted under the regs to make any deduction for loss of value from a refund.

More particularly I don't like their T&Cs misleading consumers by wrongly trying to make them believe that items like books, CDs and DVDs cannot be returned.  Of course they can.  I suspect that even telling consumers that those items cannot be returned may be a criminal offence insofar as it misleads consumers as to what their actual statutory rights are - but I'm not sure how the OP could tell R+R about that without it sounding like blackmail!

It's entirely up to the OP (and their son) if they want to pursue this further.  The OP has been told that only if it gets as far as a Letter Before Action and only if R+R refuse to comply with that LBA do they need to make any difficult decisions that might involve further expenditure and risk.

From your bold text......

I may be mistaken but I thought litigants in person in "small claims" could claim costs for their own time at £19 per hour plus legitimate expenses.  Is that not correct?

My understanding is that it that whilst it can be awarded, up to that figure, to a winning claimant at the judge's discretion, I don't think it is automatic by any means.

Fair enough - but then if the retailer has drawn the process out by arguing the point and saying they will refund nothing, then isn't the consumer in a very strong position to claim costs for their own time if they then win?  The consumer didn't choose to draw out this process - R+R did.  Why wouldn't a judge exercise discretion in favour of the consumer?

To do otherwise would seem to be the courts discouraging consumers from pursuing their statutory rights.

Look - I'm not saying that the OP would win a case if it got to court, but I think they have a reasonable case to argue.

Reading between the lines you obviously have doubts as to whether the OP's son can get a full refund either (1) on the basis of being a minor and/or (2) on the basis that R+R's T&Cs do not comply with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

If those are your views can you explain such that the OP is in a better position to weigh up the pros and cons as to whether this is worth pursuing, or whether they should just accept R+R's position? 

I have no expert knowledge on that point. On the basis of how I remember the issue being explained earlier it seems to be almost a catch 22.

Had the company knowingly contracted with a minor then I would be more inclined to agree with you. However they didn't. They made it clear in their t & c that buyers must be adults. Despite this the minor bought from them using his debit card (which I think you can get a 13+ (??) but certainly under 18). They had no possible means of checking if every customer is 18+. Unlike a physical shop  where generally anybody who looks under 25 is asked for ID to buy age restricted products, they have no similar option. That seems to me to put any online retailer in an impossible position. It might be solved in the future by digital identity cards but we are not there yet.

This is one aspect were I could see a CC judge looking hard for a way of avoiding penalising the retailer. Judges are human and generally have a sense of justice. At this level it is incredibly rare for a CC judgement in a 100 quid dispute being appealed giving them plenty of scope to find a "fair" grey area. Whether or not these are "essential" clothing might just be the window a sympathetic judge is looking for?

[CROSS POSTED WITH THE LUNATIC...]

I'm not sure that your reply addresses The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 points in my post?

(1)   Regarding the minors point I have little to say.  @A_Geordie first raised that issue, not me.

When another poster pointed out that R+R's T&Cs attempt to "evade liability" for contracting with minors, I think @A_Geodie pointed out that that couldn't work.

If the law prevents the OP's son from contracting as a minor, it also prevents him from "contracting out" of that protection - otherwise what is the point of that protection?  It's not a Catch 22 - it's simply that a minor cannot be bound by certain types of contract

Of course you might argue that rock climbing shoes are essentials or necessities - well ok, go ahead and do so...

How an online retailer deals with the issue of selling to minors is their problem - nobody else's.  Asking a minor to confirm they aren't a minor doesn't seem tenable to me.  That's the point of the law.

However, that's not my main argument...


(2)  Regarding  The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 points in my posts:

The combined effect of paras 31 and 34(11) of the above regulations is that if the retailer does not provide the consumer with all the information explaining the right to cancel etc under paras 27 to 38, then (1) the right to cancel is extended by up to a year and (2) the retailer must make a full refund with no deduction for "loss of value".

I'm of the view that R+R's T&Cs do not provide sufficient infromation to the consumer regarding the consumer's right to cancel a distance contract under paras 27 to 38 of the Regulations.

I presume you think that view is mistaken?  (Which it might be but if so the OP needs to know...)