Shipping refund for partial return

[minskin]

Hi all,

I apologise if this question has been asked before, I have searched but couldn't find anything quite the same.

I am a web retailer selling home furnishing goods. I provide free shipping for orders over £45.00 and adhere strictly to the DSRs with regard to returns (customer pays for return). I think I'm pretty familiar with the DSRs but there is a scenario that happens occasionally that I don't quite know how to deal with.

Scenario;
Customer places an order for 2 items, each £30.00 so qualifies for free delivery. Customer then cancels one of the items within their right to cancel period, and returns it. The obvious, is to refund the customer £30.00 for the returned item. However, the customer has then managed to get a £30.00 item with free deilvery.

Not only is this galling but it's also rather damaging for my business. As some of the items I sell are very long the carriage costs can easily be over £10.00. The profit on a £30.00 item is often less than £10.00 so I lose money.

As the item that the customer keeps would normally incur a shipping charge if ordered on its own am I entitled to deduct that shipping cost from the refund? I'd appreciate peoples opinions on this....

Many thanks, Minskin

 

[Dymo King]

The DSR allows a customer to cancel their order, not individual items on the order.

Therefore, if they tell you they want to return 1 of the items you can turn around and say "no, you can return both or neither".

Of course they may just return both items, but at least you wouldn't feel like they ripped you off by deliberately buying two items just to get free delivery with no intention of keeping them...

However, the customer has then managed to get a £30.00 item with free deilvery.

Well, you say that, but if they have to pay to return the other item then they haven't really got free delivery - so maybe they are returning items for another reason other than to get free delivery.

As the item that the customer keeps would normally incur a shipping charge if ordered on its own am I entitled to deduct that shipping cost from the refund?

Well, here's where it gets interesting. I would suggest that you put something in your terms and conditions that states that they are entitled only to return the entire order but they can return part of their order if they want to, but if they do you will deduct a shipping charge (or just call it a restocking fee) from the refund.

Now the DSR specifically forbids you from doing this as the consumer has the right to cancel the order, and you must refund 100% of the order amount, including any delivery charges, and you must not charge any restocking fees. It also states that you can't have any t&c's that override or conflict with the DSR itself which always takes precedence..

BUT...

As previously mentioned, the DSR is only concerned with the customer cancelling their order - Not on returning specific items from an order of more than one item.

So... If the customer wants to cancel their entire order you must follow the rules laid out in the DSR, but if they want to return only part of an order then that is not covered by the DSR so you can either tell them to get stuffed, or write something in to your terms and conditions about a restocking fee.

Or of course you can offer them a 30 day money back return period (this may also increase your sales), the DSR still holds for those first 7 days after receipt, but for the rest of the 30 days you can basically make up your own T&C's.

Or at least that is our understanding of the DSR, if anyone disagrees we'd be interested to hear about it...

 

[minskin]

Thanks Dymo King, That's all verrrrrrrry interesting.

It seems sort of obvious now that the DSRs provide for regulations only on whole orders, I suppose once a customer slipts that order up they are effectively changing the contract. I hadn't thought of it that way.....

With regard to offering extended money back guarantee periods, I had never really understood the merits of doing so but now I see the advantages

If anyone else has anything else to add I'd be keen to hear, otherwise I feel another T&C revision coming on.......

Mucho thanks!

Minskin

 

[Dymo King]

you have to be very careful how you word it though. If you're going the 30 day route then make sure you follow all the DSR rules on providing the customer with the mandatory information in a durable format (T&C on the site is not enough). Otherwise that 7 day limit automatically expands to much longer (I think 30 days from when you remedy it, off the top of my head) thus negating the whole point.

Most of the companies (a lot of the really big well known names) that use the 30 day "trick" are very strict on the terms. Basically most of them say that you can return it upto 30 days but it must be in pristine, resalable, un-opened and un-used condition and that they won't get a refund of the delivery charge and have to pay the return delivery charge.

Customers somehow seem to think this is better than the 7 days they normally get, when in fact it's much worse for them. They don't spot the significance of the change in the terms after that initial 7 days - and if they think they have 30 days rather than 7 days to check the product out then most of the time they'll not bother asking to return it until well past the first 7 days (after all, why rush if you have 30 whole days!)...

ps. we don't do this btw, but like you we can see the obvious advantages for the merchant if you're in a market where your customers tend to try and rip you off. And of course, just because you have watertight t&c's to protect you doesn't mean you have to strictly follow them if the customer seems genuine - but they are there to protect you when they are really taking the ****.

 

[minskin]

Yes, I absolutely agree with you Dymo. Offering a longer money back period is effectively a trick in most cases. I have always been a stickler for the rules of DSRs and have always been clear and fair to customers about their rights and adhered closely to my obligations (while others have flagrantly disregarded them or just got them plain wrong) so it doens't sit too well with me to be honest.

However, in these tough times and while consumers are getting ever more wiley, I have a duty to protect my business and employees. It'll take some careful thought but I think I will end up using the fairest version of this method I can find.

I'll also certainly be including extra terms regarding return part orders.

Thanks for your input, it's always good to chew the fat and get a different view on things. One's never too old to learn!

Minskin