Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000

[TomB]

Have noticed a little confusion around the rights of the buyer (and the seller) in what is often termed a "mail order" transaction - including the purchase of bicycles in the UK.

Consumers have significant rights for these transactions!

(Before anyone asks "written confirmation" means ink on paper in the customers hand only... I know most suppliers do not do this which means three months and seven days counts as the return period for most transactions )

The Office of Fair Trading: Distance Selling Regulations

The regulations give consumers an unconditional right to cancel an order.

This is to allow the consumer the opportunity to examine the goods or consider the nature of a service.

If a consumer cancels an order, written notice must be given by:

• goods – seven working days from the day after that on which the goods are received by the consumer;
• services – seven working days from the day after that on which the consumer agrees to go ahead with the contract.

If the supplier fails to provide consumers with written confirmation of all the required information, then the cancellation periods can be extended up to a maximum of three months and seven working days. If the missing information is provided during this time, then the cancellation period ends seven working days beginning with the day after the full written confirmation is received by the consumer.

Where a contract is cancelled, the consumer must ensure that reasonable care is taken of any goods received and 'restore' them to the supplier. This does not mean that they have to return them - unless the supplier stipulates this in the contract - only that they make them available for the supplier to collect.

The supplier must refund the consumer's money as soon as possible and, at the latest, within 30 days of receiving the written notice of cancellation.

The consumer may, at the suppliers discretion, be charged the direct cost of returning the goods, but the supplier must tell them about this in the written information given.

If payment for the goods or services is under a related credit agreement, the consumer's cancellation notice also has the effect of cancelling the credit agreement.

 

[flecc]

The consumer may, at the suppliers discretion, be charged the direct cost of returning the goods, but the supplier must tell them about this in the written information given.

This is as I've always understood the position and posted as such.

For much of consumer protection legislation though, there's the law and there's what actually happens, and there are examples where even the largest companies are prepared to openly defy the law where the effect of consumer protection becomes silly as it so often does.

Common sense comes into it, and where a consumer stubbornly sticks to a point of law and refuses to be sensible, they so often come unstuck and end up disadvantaging themselves.

Two parties working in co-operation always achieve more than those working in opposition.
.

 

[robert44]

Tom,
I think confusion has arose between the return of defective & non-defective goods.

Copied from BERR (Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform), Distance Selling,FAQs:-

"Q4. Do I have to pay to return the goods?
The business is not entitled to charge for recovery of the goods if the consumer also has a statutory right to cancel the contract under other legislation, (for example because they are defective) or if the term requiring the consumer to return the goods is an ‘‘unfair term’’ within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2001.

Q5. What should I do if the goods are faulty?
The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 give consumers an unconditional cancellation right, in addition to their rights under the Sale of Goods Legislation.Where a consumer claims goods are faulty after having had a reasonable time to examine them (which could be after the expiry of the cooling off period above) the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act apply.
The Act makes it clear that if the goods do not conform to contract and the consumer exercises his or her right to reject them, they can ask for their money back, providing they do so quickly. Alternatively, they can request repair and replacement or claim compensation. Please see the Sale of Goods quick facts for further information."


Copied from the Sale of Goods Act 1979:-

"48B Repair or replacement of the goods

(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage). "

The Distance Selling regs, often quoted in retailers terms & conditions, do not replace a buyer's rights under the Sale Of Goods Act.
For example, the quotation "If an item needs to be returned outwith the 7 day cooling-off period for any reason whatsoever then the customer is responsible for getting the item to our premises. This includes meeting the packaging and postage (courier) costs." is from the Electric Transport Shop's terms & conditions. This appears to contradict the Berr's interpretation of the return of faulty goods and section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act.
By the way, anybody know what "outwith" means?? Is it some arcane legal term??

Anyway, I hope I haven't confused things even more. As the majority of ebikers have to buy via distance selling I think knowing one's rights would be worth clarify for all forum members.
Any legal experts in this forum? Any comments from ebike retailers?

 

[flecc]

Robert, here's an example of widespread practice, regardless of what that law says:

Computers are sold either with a "Return to Base", "Collect and Return" or more rarely, a "Repair on Site" basis, those stated in advance and often in the advertising.
.

 

[robert44]

This is as I've always understood the position and posted as such.

For much of consumer protection legislation though, there's the law and there's what actually happens, and there are examples where even the largest companies are prepared to openly defy the law where the effect of consumer protection becomes silly as it so often does.

Common sense comes into it, and where a consumer stubbornly sticks to a point of law and refuses to be sensible, they so often come unstuck and end up disadvantaging themselves.

Two parties working in co-operation always achieve more than those working in opposition.
.

Flecc,
"Common sense"and "Two parties working in co-operation", I couldn't agree with you more.
Unfortuntely, as a consumer making a purchase, one of the first things we often ignore/cannot understand are terms and conditions - where's the common sense in that? Quite rightly, a retailer must have terms and conditions to protect himself, but the same reasoning applies to consumers.
Is it being stubborn to think that having paid for faulty goods you should not have to pay again to have those goods repaired/replaced? Would I be sensible in paying more for faulty goods?
Is consumer protection often silly? I think that where companies,big or small, defy the law, they do so because they have more financial muscle than the average individual. I personally don't think companies generally defy laws because most laws(consumer) are not silly. I think most companies take a commonsense approach in the way they operate regardless of laws.
Naturally, I am biased towards the consumer as understandably a retailer would be the opposite.
I'm trying to resist becoming more cynical but it isn't always easy!

 

[robert44]

Robert, here's an example of widespread practice, regardless of what that law says:

Computers are sold either with a "Return to Base", "Collect and Return" or more rarely, a "Repair on Site" basis, those stated in advance and often in the advertising.
.

Flecc,
no disagreement with what your pointing out here, but are these repairs within the statutory guarantee period? i.e. do they come under section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act?
Often it is not so much what is said as is what is not said. Don't believe me, ask any politician!

 

[flecc]

i.e. do they come under section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act?

I presume so, since it's consumer goods being sold to consumers that I'm referring to.
.

 

[TomB]

This is as I've always understood the position and posted as such.

Common sense comes into it, and where a consumer stubbornly sticks to a point of law and refuses to be sensible, they so often come unstuck and end up disadvantaging themselves.

Two parties working in co-operation always achieve more than those working in opposition.
.

Absolutely Flecc. But when a supplier openly flouts or is ignorant of the law and refuses to be sensible isn't it nice to know that now the power in the (distance) transaction is actually with the consumer.

Because the supplier hardly ever informs the buyer of their right in writing then the buyer nearly always (and always always in the first 7 days) begins with a position in the "negotiation" of having the right to a refund and having the seller responsible for the return of the goods - for any goods in any condition - yes non faulty and fully working!

Having the knowledge that if the matter came to a small claims court then the seller would be in the wrong (and now even more out of pocket...) if they had not adhered to the regulations -- because after all the law does mean something somewhere -- must be a good thing...

 

[flecc]

My point as always in these consumer issues is that turning to the law, even merely quoting it, is not the best place to start dealing with a problem.

Time after time, including in this site, I've seen a consumer explode into anger the moment something goes wrong and start from that point. Inevitably that leads to confrontation, opposition, frustration and ever increasing stress. The retailer/supplier in those circumstances will often both fob off the customer and give the absolute minimum of help they can get away with.

Things do go wrong, and treating each occasion with calm amusement at he inevitability of such events is the best start point, followed by sharing the problem with the supplier in a "what can we do to overcome it" approach.

Being helpful to the supplier in that way pays off handsomely time after time, and I've given examples of that in here previously. It's certainly been very rewarding to me throughout my life, often receiving long term preferential treatment and discounts etc in consequence of my co-operative attitude and actual help at the time of a problem.

Those who turn to the law too early are not beneficiaries but usually losers in my experience.
.

 

[robert44]

When all else fails.

My point as always in these consumer issues is that turning to the law, even merely quoting it, is not the best place to start dealing with a problem.

Time after time, including in this site, I've seen a consumer explode into anger the moment something goes wrong and start from that point. Inevitably that leads to confrontation, opposition, frustration and ever increasing stress. The retailer/supplier in those circumstances will often both fob off the customer and give the absolute minimum of help they can get away with.

Things do go wrong, and treating each occasion with calm amusement at he inevitability of such events is the best start point, followed by sharing the problem with the supplier in a "what can we do to overcome it" approach.

Being helpful to the supplier in that way pays off handsomely time after time, and I've given examples of that in here previously. It's certainly been very rewarding to me throughout my life, often receiving long term preferential treatment and discounts etc in consequence of my co-operative attitude and actual help at the time of a problem.

Those who turn to the law too early are not beneficiaries but usually losers in my experience.
.

Flecc,
what would you do if after telephoning, emailing and sending letters, you get no replies? People say they will ring back, but fail to do so, for instance? Surely you would then have only your statutory rights to help you?
Yes, some customers are too quick to find fault but that is not always the case. I'm sure you will agree that some retailers are equally inconsiderate.
I think that your approach is the one used by most members of this forum.
For me, the purpose of this thread is to try and clarify what one is entitled to, as a last resort.

 

[flecc]

I think that your approach is the one used by most members of this forum.

And I'm absolutely sure it's not as common as you feel Robert.

I realise the helpful intention of these legal rights postings that we've had so many times, ad nauseum indeed, but I'm normally the only one out of around a thousand members who ever posts about the sensible way to approach problems and that speak volumes about today's consumer attitudes. Sure some others agree once I do, but it's the emphasis on the legal rights that gives the wrong slant at the outset.

Yes, some retailers are difficult, but they can nearly always be won over, and I've achieved good service from some of the companies most heavily criticised in here, without them knowing who I am or my presence in this forum.

Truly bad companies are extremely rare since most businessmen want to stay in business, most are perfectly capable of good service if they wish to give it. The clever customer decides that.
.