Section 75 yes or no?

[labman]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

I don't know whether you saw my post over the weekend 'Repossessing A Car?' I confess to being an addict of promoting consumer rights. However, to find the information I wanted to find to help a friend with a genuine problem from a business perspective was a nightmare.

Whatever I Googled came up on the consumer's side of how to stop repossession, nothing about how to legitimately go about repossessing a vehicle.

Perhaps sometimes the legislation has gone too far the consumer's way, and the EU Directive next year will redress this imbalance a bit.

By the way, I do now know exactly how to repossess a car should you ever need to know! :beagle:

[teaboy2]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Thanks wales01man. It is as said by yourselves before i believe - Common sense.

Put it this way a customer must pay for goods before they can expect to receive them unless other payment arrangements are agreed. Therefore the buyer should return goods before they should expect the seller to refund them. Its common sense, and most consumers expect that the goods should be returned before a refund is issued to them. Any buyer refusing to return or allow the collection of the goods until after a refund is issued are them selfs not only being unreasonable but also are connecting the issuing of a refund with the return of the goods.

[Guest]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Well i think it may be open to debate and different interpretations. But i personally will simply continue to only issue refund once goods are return which is standard practice for many companies both for online and offline orders. Because as far as am concerned, the buyer has a duty to restore the goods to the seller and not to inpede on the sellers rights to receive the return of the goods.

By the way the DTI guide is just their interpretation of good practice under the DSR, its nothing more than that.

Yes it does seem bizarre but it does seem that you would be in breach of the regulation if you declined to repay just because you did not have possession of the goods.

I think the DTI interpretation should be given a little credence.

Another spect of the new regulations is that the 7 day cancellation should be extended to on line action sites like ebay, tht will be fun.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

I doubt am in breach of anything when the buyer has a statutory duty to restore the goods to me upon their notice of cancellation. If they refuse to do so then it is they that are being unreasonable and in breach of their statutory duty.

According to this websites guide - http://www.money.co.uk/article/10024...-explained.htm - They would be in agreement that the seller has 21 days form cancellation to return the goods whereby the seller would then be obliged to issue a refund within 30 days. Perhaps the seller has an additional 9 days to issue the refund compared to the 21 days the buyer has to return the goods for a reason. Such as to allow the seller to be in receipt of the goods prior to issuing a refund. Which has always been my opinion and interpretation. I admit the DSR is somewhat vague, but the only reason it has not been tested in court regarding this refund and return of goods issue, is probably because 95% on consumers return the goods first before they expect to be refunded and given they only have 21 days to return the goods where the seller has 30 days to issue a refund, then it kind of supports my interpretation.

It would also seem that Tony from www.smallclaims.uk.com agrees with my view too judging by his post here - http://www.freeindex.co.uk/business-...pense_4669.htm

[labman]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

I found this quite good:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advic...732E1D53D2BC57

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Well this has certainly started some debate! I can agree that the OFT guides are simply guides but they appear to explain the LAW in simple question and answer format and it seems perfectly clear to me that the supplier in my case is wrong to suggest that a refund will only be given at his discretion. As I said before, I had offered to return the goods immediately I cancelled, at my own expense and I was incorrectly denied my rights to an 'unconditional' refund to which I am entitled under the DSR's which clearly override the suppliers own T&C's. He even claims on his own website that nothing in his T&C's will restrict ones statutory rights but then clearly attempts to do just that!
Thanks to all for your views/input/advice.
I will of course keep you all informed.

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Hi Redletter
Please be advised I have a meeting with a solicitor next week to clarify my legal obligations to the matter of returning the light as you have pointed on a number of occasions of your possible rights to returning the light these need to confirmed as soon as this is done I’ll be in touch regarding my next course of action. I will aim to do this as soon as possible and within the 30 days you have outlined.
*
*
Regards
*
Supplier.
*
*
*

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

The above email just arrived in my inbox.

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Should I acknowledge/reply/comment?

[labman]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

What is there to reply to?

[wales01man]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Why is the seller spending money on a solicitor he must be unsure of himself or there is more to this?

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

Why is the seller spending money on a solicitor he must be unsure of himself or there is more to this?

I think he is unsure. He clearly has no idea of his obligations.This is one of the emails he sent me;I have made you aware of my position many times you also need to check your information carefully as they and I quote are no means law they are meant as a guide only for the facts of law please consult a legal advisor un quote. Those GUIDES also point out that they do not apply to computer software were the seal has been broken by the consumer used and installed by definition the whole unit is computer software and you clearly broken the seal used and installed the software!!*As I pointed out I have forward the query to my OATA (as i am a member) to pass onto my FREE legal advisor so I suggest you EMPLOY your own legal adviser if you to Pursue your course of action. As you wish not to take calls to discuss the matter I will no longer explain myself time and time again.*Kind Regards...........He seems to be trying every excuse he can to hold on to my money! How on earth is an LED unit classed as 'software'!

[teaboy2]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

I doubt hes spending anything, it probably be free consultation. Its more like hes checking his rights here rather than the buyers since the buyer is refusing to return goods. But thats just my opinion.

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

This was the first response to my cancelation request..regarding returning the unit we cannot accept the unit for return for refund due to the fact the unit has not remained new and unopened due to the fact you have stated in previous emails that you have used and installed the light rendering used and unable for us to resell the unit as new. We can on receiving the light if you still wish to return it asses it condition and possibly discuss the refund but we are unfortunately not obliged to give you a refund under trading laws and our TAC once the item has been used and opened which it clearly has from your own words.We will do our best to help you in with this situation but it will be at our discretion.....I never ever stated the light was used or installed. It could never have been installed as I don't even have an aquarium to install it over as yet!

[Redletter]

Re: Section 75 yes or no?

I doubt hes spending anything, it probably be free consultation. Its more like hes checking his rights here rather than the buyers since the buyer is refusing to return goods. But thats just my opinion.

Can I just clarify. I am not refusing to return the goods I am refusing to return them at my cost seeing as the seller didn't fulfill his obligations to provide WRITTEN details of his returns policy in durable form as required by the afore mentioned DSR's.I offered to return the goods at my own expense in the first instance but it is now more a matter of principle. I am honouring my obligation to take reasonable care of the goods and the seller may request that he collects the goods anytime he wishes.