Shopping in-store, online or by phone? Your consumer rights are now boosted

grumbler · 15 June 2014 at 10:28AM

To be fair, MSE article does say this:
"... here are some exclusions such as package travel contracts, construction contracts and most financial services"

6_6_6 · 16 June 2014 at 12:12AM

This has big business influence written all over it. Corporatism wins over yet again, wonder how much cash lined back pockets in Brussels this time.

Firstly the changes allow a retailer to refuse a full refund if the goods are opened i.e. a mobile phone box seal is broken. This is utter BS ! The mobile phone or any other product, that might have a box seal on it can be on display in a shop thus seal would have to be broken, or indeed a bra worn by people trying them on as they do in many shops only to be put back on the peg. This makes a mockery of the whole purpose of the DSR and can only be retailer wet dream. We lose!

There is by no means a 'doubling' of the time scales for someone to cancel, that's blatant spin, this is intentional misrepresentation albeit made by a most transparent and simple minded fool. Should you have received your goods on a Friday 22nd August, you would have until the 3rd Sep to cancel. With the new regulations, this becomes 5th, only 2 extra days. This is pretty much the elephant in the room, taking some of the emphasis off the real shortcoming, now you only have 14 days to return the product vs 30 days resulting in much harsher demands on the consumer, in affect a worse predicament for busy folk. We lose!

Someone here said "Maybe now the buyers will be a bit more careful when ordering." Obviously the sentiments of a retailer, but also very misguided as a result. The whole purpose of the act was to protect consumers and provide them with the ability to check goods are as advertised. It’s not about being careful in the first place! It's about extending the same ability to inspect goods as one would typically expect in a shop with the goods on display and indeed demonstrable in use, much as you could ask the shop assistant to plug an item in and demonstrate how it works.

Overall this is merely a tightening of the rules in favor of the retailer and does very little to enhance benefit for the consumer, in some cases it puts consumers at a greater disadvantage.

unholyangel · 16 June 2014 at 12:40AM

6_6_6 wrote: »

This has big business influence written all over it. Corporatism wins over yet again, wonder how much cash lined back pockets in Brussels this time.

Firstly the changes allow a retailer to refuse a full refund if the goods are opened i.e. a mobile phone box seal is broken. This is utter BS ! The mobile phone or any other product, that might have a box seal on it can be on display in a shop thus seal would have to be broken, or indeed a bra worn by people trying them on as they do in many shops only to be put back on the peg. This makes a mockery of the whole purpose of the DSR and can only be retailer wet dream. We lose! The new regs actually state you are allowed to examine them as you would in a shop, however they fail to define what exactly that means (some shops only have dummy models that don't work)

There is by no means a 'doubling' of the time scales for someone to cancel, that's blatant spin, this is intentional misrepresentation albeit made by a most transparent and simple minded fool. Should you have received your goods on a Friday 22nd August, you would have until the 3rd Sep to cancel. With the new regulations, this becomes 5th, only 2 extra days. This is pretty much the elephant in the room, taking some of the emphasis off the real shortcoming, now you only have 14 days to return the product vs 30 days resulting in much harsher demands on the consumer, in affect a worse predicament for busy folk. We lose! - There was never a time limit previous for returning the goods.

Someone here said "Maybe now the buyers will be a bit more careful when ordering." Obviously the sentiments of a retailer, but also very misguided as a result. The whole purpose of the act was to protect consumers and provide them with the ability to check goods are as advertised. It’s not about being careful in the first place! It's about extending the same ability to inspect goods as one would typically expect in a shop with the goods on display and indeed demonstrable in use, much as you could ask the shop assistant to plug an item in and demonstrate how it works.

Overall this is merely a tightening of the rules in favor of the retailer and does very little to enhance benefit for the consumer, in some cases it puts consumers at a greater disadvantage. I still think the changes do overall benefit the consumer. My only concern really is the retailers legally being allowed to make a deduction - up to the whole contract price.

My comments in purple.

Really, I'm not sure what (if any) different the new regs will make. Retailers seem to pick and choose which bits they want to adhere to already - as there seems to be little or no consequence for ignoring the law if you're a business rather than an individual.

arcon5 · 16 June 2014 at 6:42AM

DSRs have for too long favoured the consumer at the retailers expenses. It has been infact been unfair to business' for a long time. So now the bars being moved and the playing field levelled of course some consumers are going to dislike it but doesn't mean its not fair. You've been overfed for too long now.

These changes are a good move for consumers and business' and finally remove some ambiguity

neilmcl · 16 June 2014 at 8:58AM

I tend to agree with the above. With any consumer or contract legislation the primary goal has to be fairness and these new regs brings that to both parties.

bod1467 · 16 June 2014 at 10:50AM

Is the directive actually in force? Or is it subject to implementation per the revised Consumer Rights Bill that is still going through Parliament?

neilmcl · 16 June 2014 at 1:10PM

Just checked and yes the regulations came into force on 13 June 2014. The Consumer Rights Bill will encompass this and other consumer focused regulations into a single core piece of legislation.

6_6_6 · 16 June 2014 at 9:00PM

If they have come into force, as of this moment, the following government site still purports the 'old' rules. Are we absolutely sure ?

h t t p://dshub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/dsrexplained

Ypaymore · 17 June 2014 at 4:36AM

Sparx wrote: »

Just looked at a few websites I knew had premium 08 numbers for customer service, to my shock and horror they now all have landline and freephone 03 numbers!

Numerous major users continue to ignore the new rules,let alone the smaller ones, see :

http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/uploads/1/1/4/5/11456053/traders_in_breach_14_june_2014.pdf

and 03 numbers are not Freephone they are charged the same as 01/02 numbers.

Ypaymore · 17 June 2014 at 4:48AM

mikb wrote: »

Considering how long this has been coming for, you'd think big companies would be ready to switch over on the day, or even before.

BBC Local Radio: have moved their numbers from 0845 to 0345, even though it's not really a "customer care" number, and they cut you off and call back anyway. Full marks. They started the change a while back.

HSBC: Still using 0845 numbers for customer "care" (website, paper statements), I wonder how long before they catch up to the law?

BBC changed as a result of a lot of effort by campaigners on saynoto0870 etc etc.;)

HSBC and other banks are well aware that customers would like 01/02/03 contact numbers to call them on. Some have already changed EG. Natwest TSB. Some are in process of change. First direct have just advised customers of 0345 alternative.

In the case of HSBC your find the new 0345 number 0345 7 404 404 is up and running in tandem with 08457 404 404,although they have not promoted it yet.;)

Shopping in-store, online or by phone? Your consumer rights are now boosted

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free