Your chance to improve the DSR

[scm5436]

I will shortly be submitting to the FSB suggestions on how the DSR can be imporved. As well as considering campaigning on the issue the FSB will also be sending it to the Government's Better Regulation Executive (BRE). The BRE will publish this on their website and promise to respond within 90 days.

So if there are any aspets of the DSR that really bug you please let me know.

Just tell me the problem and also suggest a solution if you want.

For example:
Problem - the DSR states that the consumer doesn't have to return the item in it's original packaging.
Recomended solution - change it so they must send it back in it's original packaging!

 

[SillyJokes]

Customers should be obliged to make reasonable effort to get orders delivered to somewhere the parcel can be taken in.

Customers should allow a minimum 5 working days for delivery by first class mail please.

 

[deniser]

1. Making a distinction between low and high value items in certain places and also between small postable items and heavy deliverable items. A T-shirt should not always be treated in the same context as a kitchen.

2. Abolishing the rule that a retailer has to refund the postage cost if the order is cancelled provided there has been no misrepresentation of the product, that sufficient information was provided allowing the customer to make a decision about ordering and that the item was not faulty.

3. Requiring the customer to return the item to you (provided this is how returns are dealt with in your T&C) before you are provided to give them a refund.

4. Going one step beyond packaging - that tags remain affixed and that ancillary things where there is a hygiene issue such as hairbands are not tried on.

5. That customers are required not to use excessive packaging when returning items! We ask our customers to reuse our postal bags which they do most of the time or failing that a supermarket carrier bag but sometimes they buy huge expensive jiffy bags when the item doesn't need padding, use a whole roll of brown tape etc. which is a nuisance to dispose of!

 

[scm5436]

Customers should allow a minimum 5 working days for delivery by first class mail please.

Not really sure what the issue is there? Is it just people constantly chasing the order?

That customers are required not to use excessive packaging when returning items! We ask our customers to reuse our postal bags which they do most of the time or failing that a supermarket carrier bag but sometimes they buy huge expensive jiffy bags when the item doesn't need padding, use a whole roll of brown tape etc. which is a nuisance to dispose of!

Not sure how practical that would be. And some merchants would want more rather than less if it's a breakable product!

2 & 3 are already on my list!

Could you give a specific example for number 1?

Another one: Customers shouldn't be allowed to cancel the order in transit - they should wait until they receive it, then cancel, then return it. If they change their mind before they get it and then refuse to accept delivery we should be able to make a reasonable charge to cover any costs we incur (such as couriers return charges!). if properly explained in our T&C's before hand of course.

 

[M178591]

Clearly define what is meant by the product must be returned in a resalable condition. Last time I looked, customers could cancel their order for any time up to 7 days from receipt of goods and return for a full refund. The goods needed to be returned in a resalable condition. However there was a grey area concerning packaging. I seem to recall the DSR mention that resalable condition didn't include packaging. This meant that customers could open the goods when they received them. However, when they returned the product they would be unlikely to pack back in the manufacturers packing. The item itself would be resalable but is not in the correct manufacturers packaging for all practical purposes for the retailer it is not returned in a resalable condition.
I had a discussion with a trading standards officer once about a customer who complained they had returned the goods in compliance with the DSR as the packaging was outside the return in good condition. When I showed the trading standards guy how the product was packed and asked him if he would be happy if I sent it to him if he placed an order he told me no - to which I replied then its not in a resalable condition.
Hope this makes sense. It’s a while since I looked at the DSR but if this hasn't been resolved then it needs to be. If a customer returns goods because they change their mind then they need to be returned in a condition where the retailer can sell to another customer. This includes the manufacturers packaging not just the packaging for shipping.

 

[Chris34]

In the computing section of the regulations software has to be returned as sealed but hardware is ok for the customer to open and handle. This is unacceptable.

The nature of the parts of computer hardware means that as soon as the bag is unsealed then the product is at risk from ESD (Electro static discharge) and this can and does damage computer hardware. ESD is an electric shock given from your own bodys stored electricity to the object you touch. Ever touched somebody else and given them a shock? Rubbed your shoes on a carpet and then touched someone which gave them a small electric shock? That's ESD but the amount that can damage computer hardware is much smaller and not neccessarily noticable by touch. ESD permanently damages the computer hardware meaning it will always underperform and is the reason why I buy only brand new sealed components. The hardware involved is things like:

Graphics cards
Hard drives
Motherboards
Internal PCI cards
Ram (memory)

To put it bluntly as soon as the bag the products come in is unsealed then it effectively wipes off a third of the products price. It's just unacceptable to return an item like this because you have changed your mind or don't like the colour. Items like this are supposed to be bought by technicians who know what they are doing and to get somebody who hasn't a clue try and do the job themselves, find that they can't do the job, then try and return the product at the sellers loss is completely unacceptable. These products are bought to go inside a pc so returning them because the customer doesn't like the colour or doesn't like the shape or has changed their mind is out of order.

This is one of the worst parts of the DSR's that need addressing.



Chris.

 

[scm5436]

Clearly define what is meant by the product must be returned in a resalable condition. Last time I looked, customers could cancel their order for any time up to 7 days from receipt of goods and return for a full refund. The goods needed to be returned in a resalable condition.

Just to clarify, the dsr states that the customers right to return is not linked to your ability to resell them - ie. they don't need to be returned in a resalable condition. They just have a duty to 'take care' of the item.

But yes, clearly this sucks and is high on my list!

And the same goes for how far the consumer is allowed to go in opening the packaging - good point about electronic componants, I will use that as a specific example.

ps. in your case I would specifically state in your terms that once the seal on the static bag is broken the item is no longer returnable. Put it in bold. I have a similar condition in my terms pointing out that the dsr only gives the customer the right to 'examine the item as they would in a shop' and pointing out that they wouldn't be able to do that in a shop! Maybe someone really stubborn would try to fight you on it, but it would be enough to put most people off. The dsr is somewhat ambiguous in that area, so as far as I can see there is nothing specifically to stop you saying that.

 

[AmberSite]

Here is my few ideas, most of them were already mentioned.

It would be nice to see that postal price is non-refundable unless otherwise stated in merchant's t& c.
The right to cancel on-line order is no longer than 48h after the item is sold (i think now it is longer).
Buyer should allow a reasonable amount of time for the item to arrive before making any claims. Week is probably the best period.
Very important one is to state that items must be returned in original condition and in original, undamaged packaging. With items that can be damaged by static discharge, packaging should be left un-opened.
Furthermore, adding a sentence that states once user receives the goods he can inspect those just like he would do it in the shop (not damaging packaging, playing with it,etc)

 

[scm5436]

The right to cancel on-line order is no longer than 48h after the item is sold (i think now it is longer).

Currently it's 7 working days after the customer receives the item. To be honest I don't think that's too unreasonable (as long as they have to return it at their own cost in pristine condition!) - does a few days really make that much difference to us?

Buyer should allow a reasonable amount of time for the item to arrive before making any claims. Week is probably the best period.

Can you expand on that? I don't think the DSR currently covers this. What type of claims are customers making?

Very important one is to state that items must be returned in original condition and in original, undamaged packaging. With items that can be damaged by static discharge, packaging should be left un-opened.

Agreed - top of the list!

Furthermore, adding a sentence that states once user receives the goods he can inspect those just like he would do it in the shop (not damaging packaging, playing with it,etc)

Indeed. This is how it's worded in the 'guide to the dsr' but not in the dsr itself which is totally ambiguous on the subject. It could do with clarification.

In fact, this is what it says in the OFT guide: "The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods"

Which is somewhat contradictory - It says 'examine as you would in a shop' but then says they can open the packaging and try it out! I'd like to see someone try walking into the average retail store, whipping a product out of the box and 'trying it out'. They'd probably find themselves escorted to the till by a security guard!

 

[deniser]

I would also like clarification of what "cancel" means.

I know it has to be in writing and that email will suffice.

Obviously someone saying they would like to cancel the order is clear but what about where the item is returned with a returns form where a box is ticked stating "wrong colour" etc.? Is implied written cancellation sufficient?

 

[deniser]

Sorry (been thinking about this quite hard):

my other problem is establishing the 7 working day time limit.

Where someone emails me shortly after making the order this is obviously quite clear.

But to establish the 7 working day time limit you would actually have to work out when the customer received the goods which is only possible with tracked mail. Then when you received the goods back (if this implies cancellation - see my previous point) and compare the two dates. This isn't really feasible when you are dealing with high volumes of outgoing and incoming parcels.

What is the situation where the customer doesn't collect the parcel from the post office so their receipt is delayed. Or when a neighbour signs for it? What happens when the written letter of cancellation accompanying the returns parcel is held up by Royal Mail in a strike or because of adverse weather such as recently?

All too time consuming to work out for me.

If someone is ordering online then they should be made to cancel by email and at the same time provide their receipt of goods date so that dates are clear.

 

[EH7]

3. Requiring the customer to return the item to you (provided this is how returns are dealt with in your T&C) before you are provided to give them a refund.

Agree with you there, seeing as at the moment a customer can demand you collect an item from them that they don't want anymore (as long as within 7 days) at your own cost if they don't like it, then refund them the full amount.

This is ridiculous, it leaves you with a substantial loss after the original postage and collection price.

 

[sysops]

I don't have much to add to what Deniser and SillyJokes have said, both of whom are spot on. But I will reiterate the point about the condition of unwanted goods.

The current wording is woolly at best, requiring the customer to have "taken reasonable care" of the goods. In order to introduce parity between buying online and in-store, the returned goods should be required to be in new condition, and fit for resale as new. The original spirit of the DSR was to "enable the customer to examine the goods in the same way they might do in-store" (or words to that effect). You can't go into a shop and open blister-packed products and walk back out without paying, and you shouldn't be able to do so for products purchased online.

 

[scm5436]

This is ridiculous, it leaves you with a substantial loss after the original postage and collection price.

Not to mention the loss on reselling the product (which theoretically you're not supposed to resell as 'new')

Deniser - not sure what to suggest for your problem. Not really sure how you could legislate that - let's face it if the order isn't trackable and the customer wants to return it they will just lie about the date received. But again, if we can get it so they have to return it in pristine condition and pay their own postage costs (both ways) does it really matter if they had it 7 days or 10 days?

What we need to do is make it so that if the customer really wants to return it then fine - but we shouldn't lose out because of their faffing about. So they must pay delivery and return 'as new' in original packaging with seals intact...

 

[AmberSite]

Buyer should allow a reasonable amount of time for the item to arrive before making any claims. Week is probably the best period. Can you expand on that? I don't think the DSR currently covers this. What type of claims are customers making?

Don't know how often it happens with others but with me its is quite a common thing. Buyers start to moan that it takes more than 1 or 2 days for item to arrive despite it says on my selling notes that it might take for up to a week for those to arrive. I know that you should dispatch items asap but sometimes there are delays from the intermediaries like posties,couriers,etc. I noticed that some buyers even expect for the item to arrive the same day, despite they choose lets say 2nd class as a postage method.
As i am started to go a bit off topic, here is the thing that i would like to see in dsr:

Customers are advised to allow at least 5 working days to arrive. If the item fails to arrive during that period, customers are encouraged to contact the seller and ask when they could expect it.

Not sure about the correct wording of this thing, but the idea is to allow at least 5 days for the item to arrive, before starting various disputes and other nasty stuff.

 

[SillyJokes]

What about giving the retailer a reasonable chance to redress any issues before proceeding to move to a charge back situation?

Chargebacks are not the way to resolve minor issues with an order. Once a charge back has been started there is often next to nothing a retailer can do to prevent it and we can't even make a refund as the funds are frozen, so we end up being charged an addtional £10 on top of loosing the money and the goods (they are very rarely returned).

Chargebacks make me unhappy because they assume we would not do something to help unhappy customers. This is simply not the case, we do all we can to sort it out and avoid the additional costs and upset caused by chargebacks.

Because we cannot do a refund once a chargeback is started the customer automatically assumes we haven't even tried - it's a no win. We cannot come out of it having helped the customer, they go away thinking they beat us up to get the results they wanted, and it isn't necessary at all. V. negative.

I suggest a minimum of two emails from customers AND a phone call (because email is very unreliable) and the retailer must respond within a short length of time during a working week.

 

[scm5436]

Don't know how often it happens with others but with me its is quite a common thing. Buyers start to moan that it takes more than 1 or 2 days for item to arrive despite it says on my selling notes that it might take for up to a week for those to arrive.

Not sure how the DSR could help with that - if the customer is too lazy to read the delivery notes on the site they are ordering on they're pretty unlikely to have read some great big long bunch of legal regulations.

I think the only thing you can do is have a delivery info page that explains it, highlight the delivery expectations during the checkout, make sure it's in your T&C's. Then as soon as they moan just send them a templated email that says "Please see the delivery timescales on this page [link], which were also mentioned during the checkout and in the T&C's you agreed to. If your order still hasn't arrived within the timescales stated please contact us again".

I do get that a bit in my stores, but not really enough to be bothered about. Maybe your site is setting unrealistic expectations? or maybe you're just in a market with a lot of impatient people!

If you say things like "first class" people are going to tend to expect it next day. So I just say "standard delivery (2-3 days)", that way there's no confusion. And just to be sure it says that on the delivery page, the bottom of the basket page, during the checkout, in the T&C's, and in the confirmation email...

 

[scm5436]

What about giving the retailer a reasonable chance to redress any issues before proceeding to move to a charge back situation?

Chargebacks are not the way to resolve minor issues with an order. Once a charge back has been started there is often next to nothing a retailer can do to prevent it and we can't even make a refund as the funds are frozen, so we end up being charged an addtional £10 on top of loosing the money and the goods (they are very rarely returned).

Wow, I've never come up against that problem. That seems a bit harsh.

Whenever, we've had a chargeback we just have to send a copy of the order and proof of delivery and that's sorted (though we only get a few, and most are 'not recognised' rather than disputes).

I've had several disputes with customers and none of them have ever charged back (well maybe they tried and their card company told them to take a hike). It's funny how different sectors have different problems with their customers...

I would have thought that the credit card companies would act more responsibly in the case of a dispute instead of just siding with the consumer.

But again, not sure this is a DSR thing, or whether it needs to be raised as a separate issue?

 

[SillyJokes]

I just think customers with a problem should give retailers the chance to resolve it before initiating what is a very heavy handed way to resolve an issue.

We don't send every parcel on a tracked delivery as our average order size is not large.

Recently someone charged back an order made in November for £10. The parcel came back to us this week returned by Royal Mail marked 'not called for'. The customer had not had his goods and in this circumstance we are happy to offer to resend or refund but instead a charge back cost us an additional £10 in World Pay admin fees.

In actual fact we get very few chargebacks, a very low figure indeed, but they are annoying if the customer uses them to get their money back rather than pop down to see if the parcel has arrived at the post office.

 

[scm5436]

I agree - that some customers are a pain, and that charging back like that would be very annoying. But the problem I forsee is this:

1) I don't think consumers would read the (poposed) DSR or know enough about it to know that charge backs are an inappropriate method os solving disputes, so they'll just go ahead and do it anyway.

2) So it would fall to the big payment processors to inform them of this. But now we're dragging a 3rd party into a set of regulations that basically acts as a set of rules for a contract between 2 parties. So will the PSP's be bothered as the regulations don't affect them?

I mean, I'll add it to the list - but realistically I can't see that one going anywhere.

ps. You might want to switch to another provider - I'm not aware of the popular ones charging for charge backs (but I could be wrong) - I've certainly never been charged. Maybe it's just a worldpay thing. And they certainly don't sound like they're helping you defend your case either!

 

[scm5436]

ok, I think we have the problems pretty much covered. Any suggestions for good examples? Specifically for the returning the product in pristine condition and what the consumer is 'allowed' to do with it. My proposal is that, apart from clothing etc, items should be 'examined as they would in a shop' and therefore in most cases that would mean returned unused.

I can use the PC componants as a good example of why breaking seals is an absolute no-no.

But are there any good examples of products that say come in an unsealed box, and that don't have seals, but that a consumer would have no reason to 'use' it. I was thinking of something like a radio or cd player - but a consumer could claim they need to plug it in and listen to it in order to hear the sound quality (something they may be able to do in a hifi store where they have them on display). So that's a poor example, anyone think of a good one?