New distance selling regulations 2 - beyond T&C's

[LabelKing]

wow, just caught this on the BBC, and it was news to me!

I see the other thread about T&C's but that just seems unimportant (just slap it on the bottom of the email). What concerned me more was that the BBC were saying that the business would now have to refund the customer the cost of the RETURN postage as well!

However, just quickly having a flick through some of the links from the previous post it seems that is not the case? It seems that we can still make the customer pay for the return as long as we tell them that in our T&C's (as with the previous regs), but we just have to provide the likely cost (which is pretty stupid - we sell some things that can be sent 1st class and some things that come in a huge box weighing 25kg!)

I was pleased to see this however, which is an improvement on the old DSR - "If you cancel this contract, we will reimburse to you all payments received from you, including the costs of delivery (except for the supplementary costs arising if you chose a type of delivery other than the least expensive type of standard delivery offered by us)."

This covers us for people that order with expensive "pre-12:00" deliveries etc...

And also: "We may make a deduction from the reimbursement for loss in value of any goods supplied, if the loss results of unnecessary handling by you"

In other words, presumably if they open sealed packaging and tear the box etc we can make a deduction for the loss of value...?

[cheesemouse]

However, just quickly having a flick through some of the links from the previous post it seems that is not the case? It seems that we can still make the customer pay for the return as long as we tell them that in our T&C's (as with the previous regs), but we just have to provide the likely cost (which is pretty stupid - we sell some things that can be sent 1st class and some things that come in a huge box weighing 25kg!)

Not sure why the BBC were saying that, but it was pretty clear from the links etc doing the rounds on this, that we must put that buyers are responsible for all return costs in the T&Cs, which as you say if we put these in the confirmation emails we've done our bit. So if you don't put it in your T&Cs and send the T&Cs to the customer then it's your own fault if they claim the returns costs.

What's this about providing likely costs for return? Not seen that before. That is just stupid, as costs can vary for each item. To add that into the T&Cs for each customers order is daft to say the least, and not to mention extremely time consuming.

Frankly I do get the impression that these new rules can be, and ARE, being interpreted so many different ways and it's just plain confusing. Add into it that some of these new rules are just plain daft, then what hope is there of getting it completely right!

[LabelKing]

What's this about providing likely costs for return? Not seen that before. That is just stupid, as costs can vary for each item. To add that into the T&Cs for each customers order is daft to say the least, and not to mention extremely time consuming.

One of the links from somewhere sent me to this page which is suggested text for the returns section.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/3/made

section 5b... it does say put a maximum if not easy to calculate, but that is also stupid (it may cost £50 to return a huge parcel, but most people may buy items that cost £1 to return...). I guess just put several values based on sizes or something...

[Lisa]

The link that Graham (Fields of Blue) put on on the other thread from the Trading Standards Institute seemed to be the easiest to digest and had examples of when you could make deductions from the reimbursement:

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/a...e-business.cfm

[cheesemouse]

The link that Graham (Fields of Blue) put on on the other thread from the Trading Standards Institute seemed to be the easiest to digest and had examples of when you could make deductions from the reimbursement:

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/a...e-business.cfm

I did have have a look at that, but that was not very easy to follow either.

[cheesemouse]

One of the links from somewhere sent me to this page which is suggested text for the returns section.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/3/made

section 5b... it does say put a maximum if not easy to calculate, but that is also stupid (it may cost £50 to return a huge parcel, but most people may buy items that cost £1 to return...). I guess just put several values based on sizes or something...

That states "If, in a distant contract, you do not offer to bear the cost of returning the goods and the goods, by their nature, cannot normally be returned by post:..."

Does that not mean that you only need to give an estimated cost if they cannot be returned by the postal service? If so then as long as what you sell can be shipped by Royal Mail then you don't need to give estimates.

[LabelKing]

Does that not mean that you only need to give an estimated cost if they cannot be returned by the postal service? If so then as long as what you sell can be shipped by Royal Mail then you don't need to give estimates.

Presumably, if your products fell into both categories then you would have to say something like "some larger products may cost up to £xxx to return"... Though how you're supposed to put a figure on it I've no idea!? It depends who they use to send it back.

[LabelKing]

Happy days! I've just finished reading the Trading Standards guide and as far as I can tell this actually helps us. It clears up a number of problems with the old DSR (refunding premium shipping, not requiring us to refund the customer until they've actually returned the item, and charging the customer for wear and tear if they use the device). And as far as I can tell there is nothing specifically bad for us (adding the T&C to the confirmation email isn't exactly a disaster).

A big issue with the old DSR was that they didn't have to return the item in the retail box (outrageous!) and it was arguable that they were actually allowed to use the item - but not any more apparently.

So mostly just the faff of having to rewrite the T&C's, return pages etc... Or have I missed something...?

[TheCartridgeKingdom]

Label King

The customer is still entitled to open and handle the goods but at a practicable level as not to damage the item/s whilst inspecting them. So they can still open plastic packaging if that's the only way to check/test them etc.

"a consumer returns a shirt that comes in a presentation box, which he had opened and removed all the pins and packaging to try it on. It is reasonable to expect a consumer to remove packaging to try on or examine an item, so you should make no deduction for this"

Items that are sceptical to health & hygiene issues are exempt as before.

i was told by my local consumer direct that once an item has been sold to an end user then returned, they item is no longer new and can only be sold as a used item.

[LabelKing]

if that's the only way to check/test them etc.

The trading standards guide gives the example of a toaster, specifically they can take it out and look at it (to judge size/colour/weight etc) but specifically can not plug it in and put bread in it to "test" it. So check, yes, but test, no. Or at least that's how I read it. They also use the wording "as in a shop" as the OFT guide used to say for the old DSR. So for computer memory or whatever they can look at the picture and info on the box, but they can open the sealed packaging and take it out of the sealed anti-static bag... (unless you think you'd get away with that in a shop!)

[LabelKing]

But the old DSR specifically said that you couldn't insist that the customer return it in the original (retail) packaging, but this version doesn't say that as far as I can see. So throwing away the packaging would be diminishing the value, and wasn't required in order to see the product (opening it was, throwing away or damaging it wasn't).

[TheCartridgeKingdom]

That's the thing we all interpret it differently.

My my view was that if they removed it from it's bag and the bag ripped when they tried to put it back in the bag, then that was what they meant. Obviously customers can't fold or put things back in certain packagings.

Regards anti static bags, then yes they have to open the bag to inspect the RAM modules or hard drive for damage or correct product. As when I've open some I've found the wrong size RAM and/or hard drives.

You should always keep packaging for the first couple of weeks or so anyway in case you have yo return it.

As as for returning in a re-saleable condition I believe it hasn't changed and these items now become used/second user.

A mate of mine buts pallet loads of goods from auctions which are the returns from Argos, Littlewoods etc & 90% of the goods have never even been opened! just returned under their no quibble guarantees as they can't be sold as new anymore.

Hence why the DSR's are a royal pain in the butt and mostly aimed to protect the customer and not the retailer. A few things have changed in our favour, but not a lot.

[LabelKing]

That's the thing we all interpret it differently.

Agreed.

Regards anti static bags, then yes they have to open the bag to inspect the RAM modules or hard drive for damage or correct product. As when I've open some I've found the wrong size RAM and/or hard drives.

There I would disagree. Firstly, try doing that in PC World and see how far you get if you try putting it back on the shelf! Secondly, there is no need to remove it from the bag to see what it is or what is does as all that info is explained on the retail packaging. If you open it and find the components are in the wrong packaging or are broken/faulty then that is covered by other legislation.

As as for returning in a re-saleable condition I believe it hasn't changed and these items now become used/second user.

Agreed that once returned they are no longer new. But insisting that the customer returns it in it's retail packaging is no longer specifically banned, so I would say that you could insist on it - and I can't see anything in there that looks like a defence against that...

[TheCartridgeKingdom]

There I would disagree. Firstly, try doing that in PC World and see how far you get if you try putting it back on the shelf! Secondly, there is no need to remove it from the bag to see what it is or what is does as all that info is explained on the retail packaging. If you open it and find the components are in the wrong packaging or are broken/faulty then that is covered by other legislation.

That's retail packaging, trade/OEM packaging is slightly different, you can't always read what the RAM or hard drive says due to anti static bags. Most anti static bags are only sealed with a reusable sticky label, but it doesn't affect them if removed from the bags to check, as long they're put back in the anti static bags. I've taken many components our of their bags in PC-World, but they all know me and that I know what I can and can't do.

Agreed that once returned they are no longer new. But insisting that the customer returns it in it's retail packaging is no longer specifically banned, so I would say that you could insist on it - and I can't see anything in there that looks like a defence against that...

I personally believe this bit still stands, as we know customers can't always get products back in their original packaging, but they should still return the packaging for every Item.