Tweet
[Edit: What follows is probably rather academic and may not be of much practical use to MIKE770 Or maybe it will be really helpful...]
Pezza54 - the examples you quote are quite interesting as it might be arguable whether they actually satisfy the requirements of paragraph (l) insofar as they could be said to be inaccurate and also be potentially likely to mislead a consumer as to the extent of their statutory rights under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)
1. "Both said customer can obtain full refund if the scooter is unused and returned in the original packaging within 14 days from date of delivery." If that is what they actually say, then I think it is both inaccurate and misleading as to a consumer's rights:
(i) Yes, a consumer has 14 days in which to notify the seller that they are cancelling a distance contract, but the consumer then has a further 14 days in which to send the cancelled goods back. (See reg 35(4) ). Saying the goods must be returned within 14 days from delivery is mis-stating the consumer's rights under the regulations
(ii) They use the term "unused" but that term is not in the regs and could potentially confuse or mislead a consumer as to their rights. The regs talk about the value of goods being diminished "as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" and this is later defined as being handling beyond what would be reasonably allowed in a shop. If you've just purchased a wheelchair online I think you can reasonably be allowed to "use" it in order to establish its nature, characteristics and functioning, which the regulations clealry allow. This might extend to a short test drive that you might expect in a shop (as echat11 has already suggested) but not to a five mile test drive. Traders really ought to try to use the same terminology as in the regulations so as to minimise likely confusion
(iii) The regs make no mention of the goods having to be returned in their original packaging, although I suppose that if the original packaging is not returned then the trader could perhaps argue that the value of the goods has been diminished by "excessive handling".
2. "One seller said if the scooter had signs of use (not damaged) the restocking charge was £35" - The regs specifically prohibit a trader from imposing any sort of "fee" whan a consumer exercises their right to cancel a contract. See reg 34(8).
Of course, if the "use" went beyond what the regulations allow and thereby diminished the value of the goods, then the trader could reduce any refund to reflect that reduction in value, but they can't charge a restocking fee.
3. "The other seller said up to 100% could be deducted from the refund depending on the company's ability to resell it secondhand" - that is probably correct insofar as the trader can in theory reduce the refund by up to 100% if the conumer's excessive handling has reduced the value of the item by 100%. See reg 34(9).
One of the problems with a lot of these traders is that they often get confused between what their own refund and returns policy might be, and what their legal obligations are under the Cancellation Regulations. For example, the firm that refers to a "restocking charge" might perhaps be referring only to their own return and refund policy, rather than (unlawfully) trying to apply it to a cancellation under the regs. It can all get very confusing for a poor consumer...
Just to add that insofar as statements made by traders might mislead consumers as to their rights, or might lead consumers to make decisions they would not otherwise have made, traders might be committing criminal offences (enforcable by Trading standards) under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk)
Pezza54 - the examples you quote are quite interesting as it might be arguable whether they actually satisfy the requirements of paragraph (l) insofar as they could be said to be inaccurate and also be potentially likely to mislead a consumer as to the extent of their statutory rights under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)
1. "Both said customer can obtain full refund if the scooter is unused and returned in the original packaging within 14 days from date of delivery." If that is what they actually say, then I think it is both inaccurate and misleading as to a consumer's rights:
(i) Yes, a consumer has 14 days in which to notify the seller that they are cancelling a distance contract, but the consumer then has a further 14 days in which to send the cancelled goods back. (See reg 35(4) ). Saying the goods must be returned within 14 days from delivery is mis-stating the consumer's rights under the regulations
(ii) They use the term "unused" but that term is not in the regs and could potentially confuse or mislead a consumer as to their rights. The regs talk about the value of goods being diminished "as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" and this is later defined as being handling beyond what would be reasonably allowed in a shop. If you've just purchased a wheelchair online I think you can reasonably be allowed to "use" it in order to establish its nature, characteristics and functioning, which the regulations clealry allow. This might extend to a short test drive that you might expect in a shop (as echat11 has already suggested) but not to a five mile test drive. Traders really ought to try to use the same terminology as in the regulations so as to minimise likely confusion
(iii) The regs make no mention of the goods having to be returned in their original packaging, although I suppose that if the original packaging is not returned then the trader could perhaps argue that the value of the goods has been diminished by "excessive handling".
2. "One seller said if the scooter had signs of use (not damaged) the restocking charge was £35" - The regs specifically prohibit a trader from imposing any sort of "fee" whan a consumer exercises their right to cancel a contract. See reg 34(8).
Of course, if the "use" went beyond what the regulations allow and thereby diminished the value of the goods, then the trader could reduce any refund to reflect that reduction in value, but they can't charge a restocking fee.
3. "The other seller said up to 100% could be deducted from the refund depending on the company's ability to resell it secondhand" - that is probably correct insofar as the trader can in theory reduce the refund by up to 100% if the conumer's excessive handling has reduced the value of the item by 100%. See reg 34(9).
One of the problems with a lot of these traders is that they often get confused between what their own refund and returns policy might be, and what their legal obligations are under the Cancellation Regulations. For example, the firm that refers to a "restocking charge" might perhaps be referring only to their own return and refund policy, rather than (unlawfully) trying to apply it to a cancellation under the regs. It can all get very confusing for a poor consumer...
Just to add that insofar as statements made by traders might mislead consumers as to their rights, or might lead consumers to make decisions they would not otherwise have made, traders might be committing criminal offences (enforcable by Trading standards) under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk)
Comment