[GLLUG] Overclockers

John Edwards john at cornerstonelinux.co.uk
Wed Apr 23 11:59:35 UTC 2014


On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:21:43PM +0100, Peter Cannon wrote:
> On 23/04/14 11:48, John Edwards wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:56:31AM +0100, Peter Cannon wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> [Customer Service]
>> <snip>
>>> So please stop bemoaning suppliers who are are reticent at taking back open goods. What the fook do you think they are going to do with your cast off? You don't like losing money and neither do they.
>> <snip>
>> Except that is exactly what the Distance Selling Regulations says you
>> have the legal right to do (within 7 days):
>>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Protection_%28Distance_Selling%29_Regulations_2000
> Please don't believe what you read on wikipedia for pitys sake.

What exactly do you mean by that?

It's a UK law, passed by Parliment in the year 2000:

The Wikipedia article has citations to the relavent sections of the
law. If you can show that it is in error then you are welcome to
correct it.

>> Think of it this way: If you bought something in person from a
>> physical store then you can look them before buying. With a remote
>> purchase you do not have that ability and so have the right to return
>> them and get their money back.
> It's all in the T&C's you should ALWAYS read the returns policy on
> any site before making a purchase. Never assume because assume makes
> an ASS out of U and ME. If it clearly states "Once you've paid us
> mush we don't take anything back!" then you can wave your Sale of
> goods/Consumer protection act till the cows come home because to
> waived your rights by accepting their terms & conditions when you
> purchased.

Nonsense. You can not sign away your statuory rights.

The Distance Selling Regulations specifically states this in section
25 (1):
"A term contained in any contract to which these Regulations apply is
void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision
for the protection of the consumer contained in these Regulations."

>> Any business that sells items over the Internet should already have a
>> way of testing and repackaging returned items. They save considerable
>> money by not have a physical store and floor staff, so should be able
>> to easily handle an increase in returned items.
> Overclockers has a physical shop.

Which is irrelavent because the original posters did not use it.

>> In the account given the company made a serious mess of the returns
>> procedure. If they could not refund the method of payment (a cheque
>> I believe) then they should not have accepted it. It is also the
>> company's responsibilty to ensure that the goods are delivered to
>> (or collected from) the correct address.
> That's a nice idea. Very few companies 'collect' you nearly always
> have to send it back at your own expense.

Not true. Read the Distance Selling Regulations, section 18 (4):

"The consumer shall not be under any duty to deliver the goods except
at his own premises and in pursuance of a request in writing, or in
another durable medium available and accessible to the consumer, from
the supplier and given to the consumer either before, or at the time
when, the goods are collected from those premises."

The consumer can send the goods back (see 18(5)), but that's optional.

>> Plus in the original case the goods appeared to be faulty, so the
>> "Satisfactory quality" and "Fitness for purpose" provisions of the
>> Sale of Goods Act would come into effect.
> Yes, I love that section It's very subjective as to in whose opinion
> something is "Fit for purpose" have you read it?

Like much of UK law it's subject to the definition of "reasonable",
which is deliberately not defined because it would be impossible to
define for every possible instance.

> I have when some low life threatened me with it over a dead laptop
> till I had it checked over and found someone had spilt orange juice
> in it! And did I get my £95 back for having it checked over because
> the arse wipe threatened me with fooking Consumer rights? No of
> course not. Did I get an apology? No of course not.

I've no idea of the specifics of that case, but if you run a business
in the UK then you really should be aware of the UK laws that apply to

> TBH anyone who whips out the sale of goods act is clearly using a
> sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are lots of people 'out of
> pocket' still bleating about the sale of goods act.

Most companies behave reasonably, but not in the case the original
poster outlined. Mentioning the appropriate laws (in a non-threatening
manner) can get some companies to wake up and behave correctly.

> You don't need
> to get into arguments, if you bought your goods on a credit card
> your Card company will refund the money and take the matter up with
> the supplier that's part of the service you get with credit
> cards. Debit and Paypal are a different matter of course. Given
> banks are desperate to be accepted back into the human race at the
> minute I would not be surprised if they would be willing to help you
> get your £50 back from [Insert supplier name] they may even be
> willing to credit your account off the debit card payment? As for
> PayPal, who knows <shrug>

The original poster did not use PayPal or a credit card, so that's

|    John Edwards   Email: john at cornerstonelinux.co.uk    |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20140423/081d1108/attachment.pgp>

More information about the GLLUG mailing list