Distance Selling Regs - Question on returns

Relevant point on returning

"In addition to the above information, consumers should also
be told:
• when and how to exercise their rights under the DSRs to
cancel including
– for goods – whether you require goods to be returned by
the consumer and if so who will pay for their return"

DSR Guide for businesses, OP did you get this above info from retailer?

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft913.pdf
 
I had an interesting experience recently. Bought a fridge freezer online, then decided I had to return it (because my neighbour informed me the delivery guys had dropped it off the lorry) but because I'd plugged it in they wouldn't take it back. They simply quoted their t& cs.
 
Uhtred they're not complying with the DSR.

And again, you do not have to pay to DSR something back -unless- they have it in their T&C.

Actually getting companies to do the above is difficult, but it's the right legal thing.
 
The Halk said:
Uhtred they're not complying with the DSR.

And again, you do not have to pay to DSR something back -unless- they have it in their T&C.

Actually getting companies to do the above is difficult, but it's the right legal thing.
Click to expand...

In my case I called 3 times and spoke to a manager but they wouldn't budge. They are a massive retailer and short of going to the cab I couldn't see how to take it further even though what they were saying didn't seem right to me.
 
Uhtred said:
In my case I called 3 times and spoke to a manager but they wouldn't budge. They are a massive retailer and short of going to the cab I couldn't see how to take it further even though what they were saying didn't seem right to me.
Click to expand...

take it further by informing trading standards/dti and/or moneyclaimonline (for £5 lol)
 
TRNC said:
T&C's can be adjusted to reflect whatever you like, and as a consumer you dont have any proof they have changed. Its also within the rights of a company to change their T&C's at any time without notice.

You have no right to return postage so dont bother asking.

Restocking/admin fees are actually allowable in some circumstances, i'll dig out the legislation.
Click to expand...

He does have a legal right if it isn't explicitly stated otherwise in retailers terms + conditions
 
I want my postage back! Delivery Charge refunds under Distance Selling Regulations

12.07.10




The Distance Selling Regulations have been in force for almost 10 years now, but some thorny issues keep coming up. And whether or not retailers are required to refund delivery charges appears to be one of them, following an investigation carried out by the BBC.

The answer is quite simple: Yes, they do.

The Regulations apply when a consumer purchases a product from a retailer at a distance, for example over the internet, the telephone, or by mail order. In most cases (there are of course some exceptions) they are given a cooling off period of seven days from the day after the date they receive the product. This seven day period may also be extended if the retailer hasn't provided all the mandatory information required by the regulations by this time.

If the consumer cancels the contract within that seven days, they are entitled to a refund of all money that they have paid in relation to that contract. This includes anything paid for postage and packing.The key part here is in relation to the contract the return is not part of the contract and cannot be reclaimed using this clause

This isn't a new issue. Back in 2002, the Office of Fair Trading had discussions with online booksellers on this very point, eventually convincing them to refund delivery charges. Many felt that this would greatly increase the overheads of online retailers as compared to offline retailers which don't have to bear delivery costs in relation to returned goods (and which are, in fact, not required to accept returns of non-faulty goods in any event). However, the rationale behind the obligations is that in order to encourage internet shopping, consumers must have the same ability to inspect the product, at no cost, as they would have had if they had gone into a shop.

Retailers don't, however, have to bear the cost of the return. Retailers conducting online sales may recover the cost of the products being returned, provided they draft their terms and conditions appropriately.Clearly states that you are not entitled to a refund of return costs

Under the Regulations, the consumer is only required to retain possession and take reasonable care of any goods which they are returning following cancellation. They are not actually obliged to return them, unless the retailer has required them to do so in their terms and conditions. However, if that vital term has been included, either the consumer must bear the cost of returning the product, or the retailer may make a charge, not exceeding the direct costs of recovering it.This bit is interesting, unless it states in their terms and conditions that you MUST return the goods then you dont have to return them. :eek:

The Regulations also provide a cancellation period for services and other requirements on online retailers. Look out for future alerts from Wragge & Co's internet law experts for updates on these topics.

http://www.wragge.com/alert_6130.asp
Click to expand...

Most people seems to be ignoring this, ive highlighted the key points and given my comments.

Amleto said:
He does have a legal right if it isn't explicitly stated otherwise in retailers terms + conditions
Click to expand...

Wrong, he has no right at all to claim the cost of returning the item. The company have the right to charge for return postage if they arrange pickup of the item but only if stated in their t/c's
 
Last edited:
I'm used to be ignored Shadez :D

The thing I've noticed from a lot of posts on consumer rights based threads is many people seem to be under the impression that sales legislation is there to protect the just customer, when in fact it is there to protect both sides. It is not drawn up on the mentality that big businesses are nasty and out to get everyone, it's drawn up to ensure both sides have equal and fair rights when they enter the contract.

The one thing I do remember from doing my Business law module many moons ago was that 99% of the time, if you were to take a step back and judge any given situation objectively the laws and statues are pretty fair.

The problem is programmes like Watchdog do their best to instill the mentality that companies are only out to get you and screw you over whenever they can, the reality is when a company makes an error by not complying with the law it is almost always a mistake or genuine misunderstanding of the rules rather than some conspiracy to keep the little man down.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
I'm used to be ignored Shadez :D

The thing I've noticed from a lot of posts on consumer rights based threads is many people seem to be under the impression that sales legislation is there to protect the just customer, when in fact it is there to protect both sides. It is not drawn up on the mentality that big businesses are nasty and out to get everyone, it's drawn up to ensure both sides have equal and fair rights when they enter the contract.

The one thing I do remember from doing my Business law module many moons ago was that 99% of the time, if you were to take a step back and judge any given situation objectively the laws and statues are pretty fair.

The problem is programmes like Watchdog do their best to instill the mentality that companies are only out to get you and screw you over whenever they can, the reality is when a company makes an error by not complying with the law it is almost always a mistake or genuine misunderstanding of the rules rather than some conspiracy to keep the little man down.
Click to expand...

Nice thought, but in reality the DSR regs are skewed so far in favour of the buyer. Even down to the you must refund them within 30 days of the request, regardless of if they send it back, stamp on it, and send it back, or don't bother even sending it back. I have had a couple of fights with companies over DSR, and these are not small companies. They have tried to charge restocking fees, they have removed credit card processing fees. I know that they have tried to back out of refunding at all "You never sent it back in unopened condition" or "we cannot resell it therefore we cannot accept it" etc etc.

Its not just large companies. And, as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

For the record, I do sell online as I have my own business and always comply with the DSR in full. Whether I like it or not!
 
But Philly the DSR is trying to replicate the same conditions as buying from a store. A customer who buys something from a shop who can inspect theitem first has an obvious advatage over someone buying something from a catalogue or computer screen where all they see is the manufacturers airbrushed marketing image of the product.

That why the DSR seems 'skewed' in favour of the customer, to bring them up to having the same choice as someone who goes to a normal shop.

In a normal shop I can inspect an item before I choose to buy it, with online sales you can't. If I break something in a shop the chances are I won't have to pay for it and even if I do it would be wholesale price not RRP (the law's a bit unclear on in store breakages) so that's why DSR covers certain damage but I'd be suprised if someone can deliebrately break something then try to claim under DSR.

What you have to imagine is the 7 days the customer has from delivery is the equivelent of the moment in time they would be in the store looking at the product deciding whether to by or not. Only if you view DSR as a form of 'free trial' does it become unfair on the retailer.
 
Last edited:
It's completely unreasonable to expect the retailer to cover the cost of returning a product if you have merely changed your mind!
Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant in my opinion and people that try and push for this when returning under DSR need to take a long hard look at themselves!!
 
Shadez said:
Most people seems to be ignoring this, ive highlighted the key points and given my comments.



Wrong, he has no right at all to claim the cost of returning the item. The company have the right to charge for return postage if they arrange pickup of the item but only if stated in their t/c's
Click to expand...

Sorry but your wrong. The company need to exempt themselves, if they do not do so they ARE liable.
They only need to have a section in their hardcopy T&Cs which they have supplied to the customer (I say hardcopy but a PDF etc is ok, a link to their website ISNT), this simply needs to state that the customer is liable for return postage (or to refund fee if company agree to collect it)
If they do not put this they ARE liable. They are liable by default but are legally allowed to opt out.
Look at the link and statement I posted above.

Edit : Its like the fact that the customer actually doesn't have to return the goods unless the seler specifically says they must. A simple statement under a DSR heading that says "Goods being refunded under the DSR need to be returned by the customer at their own cost" and they are covered simples.
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
It's completely unreasonable to expect the retailer to cover the cost of returning a product if you have merely changed your mind!
Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant in my opinion and people that try and push for this when returning under DSR need to take a long hard look at themselves!!
Click to expand...

Its no more reasonable or unreasonable than the outgoing postage.

In order to stop any deductions from the original purchase price they specifically made it that the retailer MUST refund in full the outgoing transport costs to the customer.

Its down to the company to opt out if they do not want to cover the return postage.

Difficulty comes down to the real reason why someone is returning, if the goods are not as represented (be that deliberately or not) its fair that the seller picks up all the costs imo. If the purchaser just wanted to take a look or changed their mind etc you can argue costs both ways are unfair on the seller.

Sellers just need to follow the guidelines and they can completely exclude themselves from the return postage, if they do not do so they are liable. I don't think personally its unfair as a consumer to end up paying return postage unless there is an actual issue with the supplied goods. They have in effect had a much longer opportunity to review the goods supplied than they would have in a shop.
 
estebanrey said:
But Philly the DSR is trying to replicate the same conditions as buying from a store. A customer who buys something from a shop who can inspect theitem first has an obvious advatage over someone buying something from a catalogue or computer screen where all they see is the manufacturers airbrushed marketing image of the product.

That why the DSR seems 'skewed' in favour of the customer, to bring them up to having the same choice as someone who goes to a normal shop.

In a normal shop I can inspect an item before I choose to buy it, with online sales you can't. If I break something in a shop the chances are I won't have to pay for it and even if I do it would be wholesale price not RRP (the law's a bit unclear on in store breakages) so that's why DSR covers certain damage but I'd be suprised if someone can deliebrately break something then try to claim under DSR.

What you have to imagine is the 7 days the customer has from delivery is the equivelent of the moment in time they would be in the store looking at the product deciding whether to by or not. Only if you view DSR as a form of 'free trial' does it become unfair on the retailer.
Click to expand...

I know why it exists etc, but its the part at the end which means they do not even have to return it. And yes, if the customer breaks it, you must still refund them in full. You would then have to take action against them to recover your costs. But you must still refund them in full first.
 
PhillyDee said:
I know why it exists etc, but its the part at the end which means they do not even have to return it. And yes, if the customer breaks it, you must still refund them in full. You would then have to take action against them to recover your costs. But you must still refund them in full first.
Click to expand...

But how is that different to me walking into a store an breaking something? If I refused to pay for the breakage and it was clearly my fault you'd have to pursue any claim through the courts as well.

The problem you are seeing is that you refunding the customer, but although you physically have the money as soon as the order is placed. Legally you don't have their money until the DSR cooling off period has expired. To try and make the two situations the same would be impracticable, you'd have to either charge people 'deposits' at the shop door way or you'd change the DSR so that customers didn't have to pay until after they had received and inspected the goods (which would obviously make theft easier.)

Don't forget that an online retailer is saving a hell of a lot of money but not having to pay for running of a shop, you can't have it all your own way.
 
Last edited:
Uhtred said:
thanks - i reported them to trading standards :)
Click to expand...

Why? Trading Standards have nothing to do with refund claims????

TS are there to make sure goods are safe, not-counterfeit and that they are advertised with the right spec (weights and measures and all that), they don't have any jurisdiction over disputes like this.
 
estebanrey said:
Why? Trading Standards have nothing to do with refund claims????

TS are there to make sure goods are safe and that they are advertised with the right spec (weights and measures and all that), they don't have any jurisdiction over disputes like this.
Click to expand...

i don't want a refund. I want to make sure they give out the correct advice to customers in future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom