should i REALLY refund a customer BEFORE they send the goods back?

[omnivore]

just been reading the distance selling regulations (DSR)

and it says that a customer can cancel their order and demand a refund BEFORE they have returned the goods to me

so i might for example send them a £10k Rolex and they might cancel the order and ask for the £10k back and then i have to hope they are reasonable and return my watch.

the DSR is VERY clear that this is what the rules say i should do but i cannot imagine that any rolex retailers operate this way

does anyone have any advice regarding this?

i am guessing that most retailers keep quite about this and most customers don't know about it so it is rarely a big issue.

are there terms and conditions one can use that removes this obligation?

cheers

 

[PMSToys]

I have never been given a refund UNTIL I have returned the goods. That goes from all the sites I've bought at over the years from the small niche suppliers to large big brand stores.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has been challenged legally on this point as it's potentially a big can of worms.

 

[Coppock]

just been reading the distance selling regulations (DSR)

and it says that a customer can cancel their order and demand a refund BEFORE they have returned the goods to me

so i might for example send them a £10k Rolex and they might cancel the order and ask for the £10k back and then i have to hope they are reasonable and return my watch.

the DSR is VERY clear that this is what the rules say i should do but i cannot imagine that any rolex retailers operate this way

does anyone have any advice regarding this?

i am guessing that most retailers keep quite about this and most customers don't know about it so it is rarely a big issue.

are there terms and conditions one can use that removes this obligation?

cheers

I'd always have your own terms and conditions, and i'd never dream of sending a refund before the item was received back...
Whether that's legal or not I don't know, but from a business owner and a customers perspective I think that's a fair agreement and am surprised the DSR state otherwise...

Maybe mention this in the legal forum as well?

Jen

 

[Astaroth]

According to the OFT guide you must refund them as soon as possible and that must be within 30 days and that you cannot delay to wait for the items to be returned (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf)

As said, assume the majority of businesses are turning a blind eye to this and relying on most people not knowing/ thinking its reasonable.... despite the fact they had to pay the retailer before the goods would be sent.

 

[edmondscommerce]

craziness...

heres hoping there aren't any fraudsters that will pick up this thread

 

[omnivore]

I'd always have your own terms and conditions, and i'd never dream of sending a refund before the item was received back...
Whether that's legal or not I don't know, but from a business owner and a customers perspective I think that's a fair agreement and am surprised the DSR state otherwise...

Maybe mention this in the legal forum as well?

Jen

that's pretty much what we do
i cant imagine anyone selling high value items would EVER do this
we sell at c. £100 and the idea of refunding some random customer
BEFORE they send a pair of shoes back is nuts
at the very least they'd take an age to send them back
and many would simply keep them and laugh at you

will post in legal right now

 

[Astaroth]

i cant imagine anyone selling high value items would EVER do this we sell at c. £100 and the idea of refunding some random customer BEFORE they send a pair of shoes back is nuts

To play devils advocate a little - how more nuts is it for you to give them £100 before they send the item than for them to have sent you £100 before you sent them the item?

Obviously if your Waterstones or Amazon then people are going to know you but many people spend a fair amount of money knowing nothing about the company they are paying and not all use credit cards and so debit card users have no automatic protection from being caught out by a rouge website.

 

[omnivore]

To play devils advocate a little - how more nuts is it for you to give them £100 before they send the item than for them to have sent you £100 before you sent them the item?

Obviously if your Waterstones or Amazon then people are going to know you but many people spend a fair amount of money knowing nothing about the company they are paying and not all use credit cards and so debit card users have no automatic protection from being caught out by a rouge website.

well yes
this concept has a value in theory
but in business
how long do you think you would last
sending out products `on approval`?

if you aren't prepared to buy products on the internet `on trust`
then you aren't going to find any suppliers willing to deal with you

if the majority of consumers exercised their right to demand a refund before returning goods then there would be no on-line retail on the internet

i guess the legislation is there to provide a mechanism to enforce fairness in the event of obvious unfairness, and is not intended to shape the behaviour of all retailers and consumers

 

[5wire]

It depends if you send them a pre-postage back to send the item back, I'd be curious who has the liability. I'm sure the liability would be held with the customer but the prepaid bag cover be covered with insurance? I'm not entirely sure.

Personally if I sold goods over the internet whatever the value I'd wait for the item to arrive, it doesn't arrive then it's not your fault as the business, the sender (customer) is liable hence why proof of postage is available as well as the option to pay for insurance that covers over £41.00 (I think it is), in this event the customer would have to claim, obviously if the value is greater and they didn't claim for that their maximum entitlement is £41.00.

It depends if you want their custom or not again, and their referrals lost, many ways to look at it.

 

[ower11]

i guess if they dont return the item you can take them to court, however this would mean getting personal details of a customer. On the other hand 10k is alot of money and paying them back before the item is returned is very risky.

 

[omnivore]

i guess if they dont return the item you can take them to court, however this would mean getting personal details of a customer. On the other hand 10k is alot of money and paying them back before the item is returned is very risky.

exactly

and taking anyone for a £100 pair of shoes each is clearly not going to viable either

 

[jelly3]

About 3 years ago I received a £200 refund from Amazon before I returned a monitor. They sent the courier company to pick it up.
I have been an Amazon customer since the 90's. And was regd on the US site before ever buying from the UK site. So it might have been a matter of trust.

It would scare me to quantify how much cash they have had from me over the years. I know I have spent over £600 on there since June.:redface:

 

[jelly3]

Now I come to think about it Debenhams dept store in Manchester also gave me back approx £139 about 8 years ago, before the return of an item also.
I have a trustworthy voice.

 

[scm5436]

The OFT guidance specifically states:

As soon as possible after the consumer cancels, and in any case within 30 days at the latest. You must refund the consumer’s money even if you have not yet collected the goods or had them returned to you by the consumer. You cannot insist on the goods being received by you before you make a refund.

This is just one of many problems with the DSR, it really needs to be re-written. It was originally written to protect consumers against unscrupulous companies, but what about protecting us from unscrupulous customers!

The correct procedure as far as the DSR is concerned is to issue the refund and then take the customer to court to recover the goods, which just seems a stupid way of doing it.

Personally I would NOT issue a refund until I received the goods - I don't give a flying monkeys ass what the DSR says. If a customer wants to return an item for a refund, but hasn't done so within 30 days clearly they're upto something dodgy.

I'd rather make them take me to court for breach of the rules than me have to take them to court to get my goods back...

Also, the DSR does state the customer has a statutory duty to take care of the goods (ie. if your 10k rolex comes back covered in scratches you don't have to refund them) - so how are you supposed to know if they've upheld their statutory duty - and are therefore entitled to a refund - if you are unable to see the goods??? That would be my excuse anyway m'lud.

 

[omnivore]

The OFT guidance specifically states:

This is just one of many problems with the DSR, it really needs to be re-written. It was originally written to protect consumers against unscrupulous companies, but what about protecting us from unscrupulous customers!

The correct procedure as far as the DSR is concerned is to issue the refund and then take the customer to court to recover the goods, which just seems a stupid way of doing it.

Personally I would NOT issue a refund until I received the goods - I don't give a flying monkeys ass what the DSR says. If a customer wants to return an item for a refund, but hasn't done so within 30 days clearly they're upto something dodgy.

I'd rather make them take me to court for breach of the rules than me have to take them to court to get my goods back...

Also, the DSR does state the customer has a statutory duty to take care of the goods (ie. if your 10k rolex comes back covered in scratches you don't have to refund them) - so how are you supposed to know if they've upheld their statutory duty - and are therefore entitled to a refund - if you are unable to see the goods??? That would be my excuse anyway m'lud.

i agree completely
that's the approach we take in practice

i think if you give a good service and do whatever you can to help customers and be more than reasonable then this is never going to be an issue anyway

cheers

 

[deniser]

I agree with the above.

Whilst it has never happened in practice, I am not going to issue any refunds before I have the goods back and they can take me to court if they want to. I would happily be a test case as the regulations are just utterly ridiculous in parts.

 

[scm5436]

i think if you give a good service and do whatever you can to help customers and be more than reasonable then this is never going to be an issue anyway

Indeed - most of the time. But some people are just jerks, and will act like jerks no matter what. Just make sure your T&C's are as watertight as they can be (given the limitations imposed by the DSR) to minimise the damage, and hope that if you do encounter any jerks that they aren't fully aware of all their rights...

Also, where the DSR is ambiguous make sure to clarify your understanding of the DSR in your terms and conditions. That way, if they have a different interpretation they can choose to go elsewhere, and if they buy from you anyway and then have a problem at least you can say they agreed to the terms - now if they want to take it further they have to prove to the court that your interpretation is incorrect...

For example, you might say in your terms "The DSR gives you the right to 'examine the goods as you would in a shop'. This means you may examine the box, read the details on the box and view the goods through the clear window in the box. But if you break the seal and open the box you lose your right to return the item"

Obviously that depends on what products your selling, and how it's packaged, but you can see how it might work. That phrase is taken out of the OFT guidelines and that is the way we interpret it. It might not be the way the customer interprets it - but if you spelled it out in the terms and they agreed to it...

ps. It's never happened to us yet either, but if it did we'd let them take us to court and say we thought they were intending to commit fraud. I can't imagine any reasonable excuse for them not returning the item within 30 days, so our fraud claim would seem a reasonable assumption...

 

[quarterdon]

The DSR simply wishes to separate the refund process from the return process.

For businesses a simple solution exists.

You refund on day 28 after refund requested.

You state items must be returned within 21 days.

So you have it back before you refund.

If they dont then you dont.

 

[scm5436]

If it's a business customer then the DSR is irrelevant, so you can make up whatever terms you want. The problem here is the DSR and consumers, and you can't introduce terms and conditions which conflict with the DSR, which is the where these problems come up because the DSR seems to have been written by a team of drunken monkeys.

 

[bottlemaster]

The DSRs are unfairly weighted towards buyers, to the point of ridiculousness.

They portray sellers as unscrupulous rip-off merchants, and buyers as poor little lambs in whose mouths butter wouldn't melt.

They need to wake up...

 

[amazestore]

I refund a customer but he won't send the item back,otherwise he will give me a bad feedback.

 

[gibby]

DSR rules are such a joke, so out dated & not really enforceable anyway

Don't refund until you have the goods back as some customers won't bother to return & they need that motivation to return the goods

G

 

[quikshop]

The answer to your question is no, no and no again. Under no circumstances should you refund a customer until you have the goods returned.

If they are mindless enough to take you to Court for breach of DSR I guarantee that organisations such as the FSB, Chamber of Commerce et al will be 100% behind you.

We could do with a test case, stick by your guns

 

[tiggohandbags]

you should refund exactly as terms and conditions ... once u have received the returned items.This is for sure.Everything can be reasonable and negotiable.what matters is just the attitude toward it.

 

[tiggohandbags]

forgot to mention,my return policy for bulk shipment is always for 30days upon arrival and a prior notice for return is needed and preconfirmed by me.the exchange or refund will only be carried out once the returned shipment received and inspected.