Consumer Contracts Regulations clarification on customer using item then wanting return

[Richie2838]

Hi all,

Just wanted some clarification regarding the Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Customer purchased an item (joystick), used it for a couple of days and decided they want to return for a full refund.

I'm not sure where we stand as the sealed box was opened, the product was used and if we accepted the return we would be unable to re-sell as a brand new product.

Please advise.
Richie.

 

[Mr D]

Hi all,

Just wanted some clarification regarding the Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Customer purchased an item (joystick), used it for a couple of days and decided they want to return for a full refund.

I'm not sure where we stand as the sealed box was opened, the product was used and if we accepted the return we would be unable to re-sell as a brand new product.

Please advise.
Richie.

The buyer has your usual return policy of return within 14 days? Get it back and refund including postage. Buyer pays return postage.

 

[Richie2838]

We do specify in our terms and conditions that if the item is manufacturer sealed and the seals are broken that we can't accept it back. Buyer agreed to these terms as part of the purchase.
Please advise, thank you.

 

[Mr D]

We do specify in our terms and conditions that if the item is manufacturer sealed and the seals are broken that we can't accept it back. Buyer agreed to these terms as part of the purchase.
Please advise, thank you.

You aren't trying to impose unfair terms now? Those aren't legally binding.
Now if you sold them a DVD brand new then yes they'd have to keep the seal intact. The buyer however cannot be compelled to even return in original packaging so your problem with it being 2nd hand isn't the customer's problem.

Oh and these terms have applied for a few years.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/c...nging-your-mind-about-something-youve-bought/

If you bought the item online, over the phone or by mail order
You automatically get a 14-day ‘cooling-off period’ when you buy something you haven’t seen in person - unless it’s bespoke or made to measure.

The cooling-off period starts the day after you receive your order, and there doesn’t need to be anything wrong with the item for you to get a refund.

You won’t get a cooling-off period when you buy:

• something that deteriorates quickly - like flowers or food
• an item that was personalised or custom-made for you
• anything from a private individual rather than a business
• a CD, DVD or software, if you break the seal on the wrapping

………………...

You don't have to return the item in its original packaging, but you do need to make sure it’s packaged in a way that means it doesn’t get damaged. Sellers can ask you to pay if something gets damaged because it wasn’t packaged properly. The seller can also ask you to pay (or reduce your refund) if you’ve reduced the value of the item, eg if you wore shoes outside and scuffed the soles - but they can only do this if it’s in the terms and conditions.

If your contract says you must use the original packaging, this is likely to be considered an ‘unfair contract term’. You can tell the seller this and see if they’ll agree to accept the return without the original packaging.

 

[Richie2838]

So am I right in assuming that a customer can purchase something, use it for up to 14 days and then decide to return it for a full refund? Hardly seems fair?

 

[Mr D]

So am I right in assuming that a customer can purchase something, use it for up to 14 days and then decide to return it for a full refund? Hardly seems fair?

Why not?
They've had that right in some form for many years, have you noticed any major issue with returns?
Simply factor in returns into your pricing the same as any other retailer.

Have you purchased things online / mail order yourself? Same rights.
Besides it helps your sales. If people couldn't return online purchases they'd probably be more likely to buy in a physical shop.

 

[NickGrogan]

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

Clothing websites have massive returns levels because of this.

 

[Richie2838]

Ok chaps, thanks for your help and advise in clearing that up

 

[Mr D]

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

Clothing websites have massive returns levels because of this.

What was it I saw one time? A bride ordered 25 dresses and returned 24.
I've returned footwear multiple times, even t-shirts occasionally.

 

[kulture]

So am I right in assuming that a customer can purchase something, use it for up to 14 days and then decide to return it for a full refund? Hardly seems fair?

Of course it's not fair. But it is the law.

 

[Elliott Coleman]

Actually that is not the law.

The law says that you can inspect goods in the same way that you would in a store.
Whilst you can not insist that manufactures seals remain intact if the customer has to break the seals in order to inspect the goods, the customer can not use the goods for 14 days and then return them for a full refund.

 

[Mr D]

Actually that is not the law.

The law says that you can inspect goods in the same way that you would in a store.
Whilst you can not insist that manufactures seals remain intact if the customer has to break the seals in order to inspect the goods, the customer can not use the goods for 14 days and then return them for a full refund.

If you would be so kind as to clarify how many days the buyer can use the joystick for and return for a full refund?

 

[Elliott Coleman]

If you would be so kind as to clarify how many days the buyer can use the joystick for and return for a full refund?

It's a grey area, like many of our laws. One could say none. Could you expect to be able to play with the joystick in store before buying it?

My opinion is that if the customer took it out the box, plugged it in and tested it and then decided to return it, that would be okay, but using it for a number of days is not. If the goods are being used for their intended purpose, then they have accepted the goods.

It's no different to clothing, you can try the dress on, but you can't wear it to the Christmas party and then return it.

 

[Mr D]

It's a grey area, like many of our laws. One could say none. Could you expect to be able to play with the joystick in store before buying it?

My opinion is that if the customer took it out the box, plugged it in and tested it and then decided to return it, that would be okay, but using it for a number of days is not. If the goods are being used for their intended purpose, then they have accepted the goods.

It's no different to clothing, you can try the dress on, but you can't wear it to the Christmas party and then return it.

Then the law should specify.

It appears I can buy a joystick I can only see in a photo, try it out in my hand, find it too awkward to use then send it back. And I do not have to do that in the same hour I receive it.

Or I can buy a pair of boots in size 10 and size 11, find out which pair is more comfortable then send the other pair back.
And I have multiple days to do that.
In a shop I would expect to at least be able to walk around the shop in a pair of boots to see how they feel, obviously walk at least as much around the house in a pair before deciding eh?
And again multiple days to arrange return.

Good thing too, have just ordered a new pair of boots in 2 sizes.

 

[Elliott Coleman]

Then the law should specify.

It appears I can buy a joystick I can only see in a photo, try it out in my hand, find it too awkward to use then send it back. And I do not have to do that in the same hour I receive it.

Or I can buy a pair of boots in size 10 and size 11, find out which pair is more comfortable then send the other pair back.
And I have multiple days to do that.
In a shop I would expect to at least be able to walk around the shop in a pair of boots to see how they feel, obviously walk at least as much around the house in a pair before deciding eh?
And again multiple days to arrange return.

Good thing too, have just ordered a new pair of boots in 2 sizes.

Not really sure what you're getting at. As I said, you can try goods as you would be able to in the store. That's what the law allows.

I never said you have to try the goods within an hour of receiving the goods, you have 14 days to do that (god only knows why). EU rules hey, go figure

 

[Mr D]

Yes UK rules say you can try and send back, timescale given.
Years ago it used to be 7 days, amazon and a few other companies have had it 30 days for years and ebay allows 60 day returns timescale now.

A few sellers have responded to the use of garments by fitting a security tag that you won't want to wear with the item and informing the buyer that return cannot be made if tag removed. Cutting down on returns after wearing.

 

[NickGrogan]

Actually that is not the law.

The law says that you can inspect goods in the same way that you would in a store.
Whilst you can not insist that manufactures seals remain intact if the customer has to break the seals in order to inspect the goods, the customer can not use the goods for 14 days and then return them for a full refund.

Sorry this is the law.

"Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods aren’t faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They don’t have to provide a reason."

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

"If you don’t follow the rules you could be made to provide the goods or services as agreed, pay compensation or be given an unlimited fine or a prison sentence."

https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses

 

[Elliott Coleman]

@NickGrogan I'm well aware of the law, I've been in online retail for 10 years. You have 14 days to return goods, but not after you have used them. But, if you're happy to have customers return used goods, knock yourself out.

 

[NickGrogan]

@Elliott Coleman - You might want to let the government know that the information they are giving about their own laws are wrong. You could tell some of the major retailers too, they'd save millions.

 

[Mr D]

@NickGrogan I'm well aware of the law, I've been in online retail for 10 years. You have 14 days to return goods, but not after you have used them. But, if you're happy to have customers return used goods, knock yourself out.

So in the instance the OP gave could the buyer return the joystick if you sold it to them?

 

[Elliott Coleman]

@Elliott Coleman - You might want to let the government know that the information they are giving about their own laws are wrong. You could tell some of the major retailers too, they'd save millions.

Let's me get this straight.

You're saying that the law allows me to buy a pair of shoes, wear them for 14 days and then return them.

The law allows me to buy a laptop, set it up, configure it, install software, use it for 14 days and then return it.

I can buy that expensive jacket for my week trip to Iceland and then return it when I get back home.

I forget my laptop charger at home as I rushed out of the house for an urgent business trip, but not to worry, I'll just buy one, get it delivered to my hotel, use it on my trip and then return it when I'm done with it.

If you think the law allows for this, you're deluded

 

[NickGrogan]

Shoes - yes, although t & c's may mean a partial refund if they scuffed. It not in the terms, then yes.

Laptop - yes

Jacket - as with shoes, yes

Charger - certainly

If you think you cant and you sell to consumers online, then you will have issues.

 

[Elliott Coleman]

Yes. I never said the OP should reject the return.

 

[Elliott Coleman]

Shoes - yes, although t & c's may mean a partial refund if they scuffed. It not in the terms, then yes.

Laptop - yes

Jacket - as with shoes, yes

Charger - certainly

If you think you cant and you sell to consumers online, then you will have issues.

I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts.

 

[lesliedocherty]

Sorry this is the law.

"Online, mail and telephone order customers have the right to cancel their order for a limited time even if the goods aren’t faulty. Sales of this kind are known as ‘distance selling’.

You must offer a refund to customers if they’ve told you within 14 days of receiving their goods that they want to cancel. They have another 14 days to return the goods once they’ve told you.

You must refund the customer within 14 days of receiving the goods back. They don’t have to provide a reason."

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

"If you don’t follow the rules you could be made to provide the goods or services as agreed, pay compensation or be given an unlimited fine or a prison sentence."

https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses

Phew, what a load of tosh

 

[lesliedocherty]

I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts.

The only person talking sense here.

 

[Mr D]

Let's me get this straight.

You're saying that the law allows me to buy a pair of shoes, wear them for 14 days and then return them.

The law allows me to buy a laptop, set it up, configure it, install software, use it for 14 days and then return it.

I can buy that expensive jacket for my week trip to Iceland and then return it when I get back home.

I forget my laptop charger at home as I rushed out of the house for an urgent business trip, but not to worry, I'll just buy one, get it delivered to my hotel, use it on my trip and then return it when I'm done with it.

If you think the law allows for this, you're deluded

So I take it you will be campaigning after the transition period to get the law changed regarding buying goods?

 

[kulture]

OK. Look at the actual regulations. 34 (9) says " If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price."

I would argue that the only way to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of a joystick is to actually use it.
So I would argue that in THIS case Elliott is wrong and the law is an ass.

Nowhere in the regulations does it limit the consumer's actions to what they could reasonably do in a shop. That may well be the INTENT of the above paragraph, but it is NOT what it says.

 

[Mr D]

OK. Look at the actual regulations. 34 (9) says " If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price."

I would argue that the only way to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of a joystick is to actually use it.
So I would argue that in THIS case Elliott is wrong and the law is an ass.

Nowhere in the regulations does it limit the consumer's actions to what they could reasonably do in a shop. That may well be the INTENT of the above paragraph, but it is NOT what it says.

And speaking as someone who has purchased and used joysticks, often they can be used in multiple games. A joystick may be fine in one game and not great in another due to where particular buttons are or how sensitive it is with the game. A joystick great for elite dangerous may not be so great in a non flying game for example. So trying the joystick within games across multiple actions and also using it with multiple games would be a reasonable test. Spend over a hundred quid on a joystick then it had better perform with the games when checking the function.

 

[NickGrogan]

I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts.

And yet a quick visit to major retailers websites reveals that you can do all of these things, under the statutory regulations section.

And the government website agrees along with citizens advice and Which, but what to they know about consumer rights and the law.

I'm sure that they're wrong, along with Amazon, John Lewis and PC World.

 

[lesliedocherty]

And yet a quick visit to major retailers websites reveals that you can do all of these things, under the statutory regulations section.

And the government website agrees along with citizens advice and Which, but what to they know about consumer rights and the law.

I'm sure that they're wrong, along with Amazon, John Lewis and PC World.

I'm sure your interpretation is more at fault here

 

[NickGrogan]

OK, well I've given several examples of sites that backup my interpretation.

Perhaps you can provide a link to a major site that says you cannot return standard non perishable items purchased online by a consumer?

 

[kulture]

The original Distance selling regulations did not have any limits on what a consumer did with the goods in the 7 days they had in which to cancel the contract. The new consumer contract regulations DO have limits as I stated above. They are not greatly worded but do offer retailers the chance to argue that the consumer has handled the goods beyond what is necessary and thus can reduce the refund. So BOTH arguments made in this thread are correct in some ways.

I suspect that retailers like John Lewis are well aware of the statutory obligations and limitations AND ambiguities and have taken the commercial decision to give refunds in more cases than they strictly need to.

I suggest that people stop relying on what is said on retailers' sites and indeed on consumer advice sites and just look at the actual law as it is written. Unlike many regulations these are understandable and should be used in preference to any and all "interpretations".

So read and enjoy http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/contents/made

It is also useful to read the whole of a section, as if I had bothered I would have noticed 34 (12) which reads "For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop" Which almost blows a hole in my argument, but for a joystick, a savvy customer could still argue that it is REASONABLE to try out the handling of a joystick in a shop and many reputable games shops could have demonstration models on hand. If this is the case then the argument that taking it out of its packaging could still be reasonable.

It is also worth noting 34 (11) "Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2. " which means that if the retailer has not spelt out these rights in the way proscribed then all bets are off and the consumer can do whatever they want.

 

[The Byre]

I suggest that people stop relying on what is said on retailers' sites and indeed on consumer advice sites and just look at the actual law as it is written. Unlike many regulations these are understandable and should be used in preference to any and all "interpretations".

So read and enjoy http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/contents/made

This!

 

[lesliedocherty]

The original Distance selling regulations did not have any limits on what a consumer did with the goods in the 7 days they had in which to cancel the contract. The new consumer contract regulations DO have limits as I stated above. They are not greatly worded but do offer retailers the chance to argue that the consumer has handled the goods beyond what is necessary and thus can reduce the refund. So BOTH arguments made in this thread are correct in some ways.

I suspect that retailers like John Lewis are well aware of the statutory obligations and limitations AND ambiguities and have taken the commercial decision to give refunds in more cases than they strictly need to.

I suggest that people stop relying on what is said on retailers' sites and indeed on consumer advice sites and just look at the actual law as it is written. Unlike many regulations these are understandable and should be used in preference to any and all "interpretations".

So read and enjoy http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/contents/made

It is also useful to read the whole of a section, as if I had bothered I would have noticed 34 (12) which reads "For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop" Which almost blows a hole in my argument, but for a joystick, a savvy customer could still argue that it is REASONABLE to try out the handling of a joystick in a shop and many reputable games shops could have demonstration models on hand. If this is the case then the argument that taking it out of its packaging could still be reasonable.

It is also worth noting 34 (11) "Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2. " which means that if the retailer has not spelt out these rights in the way proscribed then all bets are off and the consumer can do whatever they want.

Sense at last prevails

 

[AlanJ1]

The original Distance selling regulations did not have any limits on what a consumer did with the goods in the 7 days they had in which to cancel the contract. The new consumer contract regulations DO have limits as I stated above. They are not greatly worded but do offer retailers the chance to argue that the consumer has handled the goods beyond what is necessary and thus can reduce the refund. So BOTH arguments made in this thread are correct in some ways.

I suspect that retailers like John Lewis are well aware of the statutory obligations and limitations AND ambiguities and have taken the commercial decision to give refunds in more cases than they strictly need to.

I suggest that people stop relying on what is said on retailers' sites and indeed on consumer advice sites and just look at the actual law as it is written. Unlike many regulations these are understandable and should be used in preference to any and all "interpretations".

So read and enjoy http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/contents/made

It is also useful to read the whole of a section, as if I had bothered I would have noticed 34 (12) which reads "For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop" Which almost blows a hole in my argument, but for a joystick, a savvy customer could still argue that it is REASONABLE to try out the handling of a joystick in a shop and many reputable games shops could have demonstration models on hand. If this is the case then the argument that taking it out of its packaging could still be reasonable.

It is also worth noting 34 (11) "Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2. " which means that if the retailer has not spelt out these rights in the way proscribed then all bets are off and the consumer can do whatever they want.

This x1000