Restocking fee

Discussion in 'Ecommerce Forum' started by Christiane, Dec 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    14,859 2,116
    I received another book by mail yesterday. In this case, the restocking fee is 40%. It's becoming increasingly the norm here, so I don't think it can be ignored. After all, the company had to store the book, find it, wrap it, and mail it. Why shouldn't their costs be covered?
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: Cornish Steve Member since: Jul 4, 2005
    #21
  2. streetslocal

    streetslocal UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    3,046 363
    The law may well not apply in the US but in the Uk this practice is illegal
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: streetslocal Member since: Nov 27, 2007
    #22
  3. kevin555

    kevin555 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    309 29
    If you charge a % re-stocking fee this will translate into a higher charge for someone who has purchased a costly item even though the initial delivery charge may have been the same.

    Thus you are more than covering your delivery charge and therefore seems to go against the DSR.
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: kevin555 Member since: Feb 5, 2007
    #23
  4. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    14,859 2,116
    But we're talking about a book here. When I bought a digital camera, the restocking fee was 15%, and that was at a brick and mortar store. This would seem to be fair: a charge related to actual costs.

    Why is it wrong for a company to cover its costs? To my mind, it's stupid for the government to make restocking charges illegal. Frankly, it's none of their business. Isn't this just another rule designed to put small companies out of business?
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: Cornish Steve Member since: Jul 4, 2005
    #24
  5. kevin555

    kevin555 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    309 29
    Why not just charge a 100% restocking fee and never get any returns??

    Surely there must be some compromise - absolute or % - that would be fair to both retailer and customer.

    But where should that line go? Should it be left to small claims court to decide or would it not be better for some trading standards blurb to provide a rough guide.

    Or as the future of retail should we not be setting benchmarks and not charge any restocking fee at all - my business doesn't, I think it's a mean 'charge' on purchases and also looks a bit ameteurish/shady.

    These hidden charges infuriate customers and should ideally be built in to the final product price.

    What I've found is that cheap etailers with 'best price' use these charges to recoup money whereas a quality etailer will offer a 'good price' with these benefits included. So do you want to be Kwik Save - look what happened to them - or Marks & Spencer?
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: kevin555 Member since: Feb 5, 2007
    #25
  6. cjd

    cjd UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    15,440 3,068
    It's called consumer protection, Steve. We do it here ;-)

    The DRSs are there to give consumers protection against crappy online stores. Because the customer can't see and touch what s/he's buying they have no idea whether the goods are what they want.

    Having a law that affects all online sellers makes it fair for all and protects the customer.
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: cjd Member since: Nov 23, 2005
    #26
  7. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    14,859 2,116
    And history reveals time and again that the best and fairest way is to let the free market drive the decision. Suppliers must provide guarantees of quality but should be allowed to charge a fee to cover costs; customers buy from companies with a good reputation or buy more cheaply with added risk. If no restocking fee is the way to go, those companies pursuing that approach will win out.

    Then it's up to suppliers to find a way to overcome the problem, so customers can feel confident with their purchases. If a company believes they can secure an advantage by waiving the restocking fee, let them do it; just don't force them to.

    I'm surprised you come down so strongly against the free market in this case; you're usually such a strong free market proponent.
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: Cornish Steve Member since: Jul 4, 2005
    #27
  8. cjd

    cjd UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    15,440 3,068
    I'm a liberal capitalist - remember :wink:

    I'm happy with the DSRs - altho' they are very slanted towards the customer, if you're a good retailer it's not a problem; it only penalises those that offer rubbish services or products.

    If you want to wind me up, talk about chargebacks............
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: cjd Member since: Nov 23, 2005
    #28
  9. streetslocal

    streetslocal UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    3,046 363
    Chargebacks are there to protect the consummer:laugh:
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: streetslocal Member since: Nov 27, 2007
    #29
  10. ken_uk

    ken_uk UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    2,224 242
    Businesses selling to consumers via Buy It Now on ebay will need to confirm to the distance selling act though, I would think, as BIN is not a auction, it is a fixed price sale.
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: ken_uk Member since: Jul 27, 2007
    #30
  11. gibby

    gibby UKBF Ace Free Member

    1,245 119
    Im sure alot of websites claim they charge a restocking fee but actually dont

    I think they do this to try and stop customers send stuff back

    also - im sure the rules state that the goods must be returned as new!
    so as i buy a bit of gear from ebuyer - if I was to return a motherboard etc the packaging is a nightmare to return without any signs of being opened & I think any reasonable customer would only return if faulty

    Im not sure just what the DSR rules actually offer a customer from experience

    last Christmas I made the mistake of buying form Inest (aka BH systems)
    the goods were faulty and they wouldnt return any calls or emails & I returned the goods but no refund happened.
    Although I chased it alot I was advised by the trading standards to get in touch with my card company - & they still didnt get a refund from Inest but in the end gace me the money as a goodwill gesture.

    So if Inest do this all the time, as I have since found out, the DSR rules don't really hold any power.

    I think any reasonable business would do as much as they can to help customers but have to draw a line somewhere with awkward ones.

    G
     
    Posted: Jan 3, 2008 By: gibby Member since: Sep 11, 2007
    #31
  12. edwards7474

    edwards7474 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1 0
    I placed an order with a company on Saturday 12th April 2008; for a Satellite Receiver at roughly 2:00pm in the afternoon.

    Due to certain issues the order was then immediately cancelled on the very same day at around 3:30pm.

    The product was never dispatched and was therefore never in my possession; therefore how can an £87.50p Restocking Fee be charged?

    The E-mails that I sent never ever got any sort or response what so ever!
    I thought that since the receiver was never dispatched and I heard nothing back; that everything was fine.

    But after checking my credit card statement online I saw a charge for £370.40p. I was quick to contact the company by telephone and they assured me they would make a refund but any charges would be minimal.

    I never expected to be hit with a whopping 25% restocking fee since the product was never ever dispatched. If it had been a cancellation fee of around £10 - £15; I would have over looked things.

    I already posted my comments on a satellite forum and a few people have back me up stressing that it can easily be taken up with the small claims court and trading standards.

    As one person commented the restocking fee conflicts with returns and refunds under the shipping and returns page. Plus the product in question never left Falconsat.co.uk and you can't return something that you never received?
     
    Posted: May 10, 2008 By: edwards7474 Member since: May 10, 2008
    #32
  13. cjd

    cjd UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    15,440 3,068
    You can't be charged any fees for cancelling an order - it's illegal. UNLESS you're buying as a business and have agreed to their terms.
     
    Posted: May 10, 2008 By: cjd Member since: Nov 23, 2005
    #33
  14. gibby

    gibby UKBF Ace Free Member

    1,245 119
    Im sure a restocking fee can only be applied when you take delivery & then return it. I though it was for the time repacking the goods etc

    get on to TS asap as they will tell you what to do & probably have other customers of the same firm with the same situation.

    G
     
    Posted: May 10, 2008 By: gibby Member since: Sep 11, 2007
    #34
  15. Boosie

    Boosie UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1 0
    A restocking fee is illegal under the Distance Selling Regulations 2000

    Just stumbled across this thread, but I read something in Computeractive recently and looked it up again via their website which states under Distance Selling Regs a restocking fee is illegal - so trading standards may take it up if they dont refund you?

    "I bought some goods online, but when I received them I decided I didn't want them. Now the company has charged me for return postage and a restocking fee.
    A restocking fee is illegal under the Distance Selling Regulations 2000. If the retailer wants to make you pay for the return postage it has to make this clear in its Terms and Conditions, otherwise it can't charge you."

    This site wont allow me to post the actual url for you until Ive made 15 posts! so here is the search term I used to take me to computeractive website "computeractive restocking fee" and the url contained the subsections features/2014045/know-consumer-rights-part-solving-disputes


    Hope this helps
     
    Posted: May 23, 2008 By: Boosie Member since: May 23, 2008
    #35
  16. Mattonella Tile Studio

    Mattonella Tile Studio UKBF Ace Free Member

    1,677 319
    Would a non-refundable deposit be classed differently?
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2008 By: Mattonella Tile Studio Member since: Jun 10, 2008
    #36
  17. deniser

    deniser UKBF Legend Free Member

    8,104 1,702
    I would never dream of charging a restocking fee as dealing with customers' complaints about it would be a nigtmare in itself quite apart from the fact that it is illegal.

    In USA it is legal and common practice.

    How I wish we could adopt it as common practice here - I hate processing returns more than anything else about my business, not the financial side which is just a few clicks of the mouse or a few buttons to press on the terminal, but putting the garment back in the shop/stock room, ironing it if crumpled, trying to identify who it belongs to if they haven't included the returns documentation, finding the cost of it for the accounts and reticketing it. It is far more work than sending it out in the first place.

    I HATE RETURNS!
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2008 By: deniser Member since: Jun 3, 2008
    #37
  18. Steve2507

    Steve2507 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,556 222
    That would depend on what the deposit was for.

    If it was a deposit for a specially made item then yes you do not have to refund it. But if it was a depsoit for and item you were just ordering in then probably no, you would have to refund it.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2008 By: Steve2507 Member since: Jun 9, 2006
    #38
  19. Mattonella Tile Studio

    Mattonella Tile Studio UKBF Ace Free Member

    1,677 319
    Our policy is that we take a deposit upon ordering the tiles, as at that point our supplier will not accept a cancellation. Am I right that you are saying we could end up in a situation whereby we can't return but the customer could return to us?
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2008 By: Mattonella Tile Studio Member since: Jun 10, 2008
    #39
  20. Steve2507

    Steve2507 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,556 222
    Sorry but I think yes. You have ordered the tiles, but they have not been specially made for the customer.
     
    Posted: Jul 3, 2008 By: Steve2507 Member since: Jun 9, 2006
    #40
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.