If you’ve parted with cash for goods or a service and you’re unhappy, then it pays to know your legal rights. But a Moneywise investigation reveals that many leading retailers have misleading returns policies.
Have you ever bought something that doesn’t work or wasn’t what you ordered? Thousands of people buy items that are faulty or misdescribed each year and, as more of us shop online, the chance of getting a dodgy item is likely to increase.
The good news is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 affords us a host of rights should something go wrong. The bad news is Moneywise has found that many leading retailers’ returns policies risk misleading people about their legal rights and there is little anyone can do about it if the provider refuses to acknowledge the law and pay up.
The good news
At the heart of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) are requirements that goods and services must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. If they are not, customers are entitled to a full refund, provided they contact the provider within 30 days. This is regardless of whether the items were purchased in a sale or at full price.
On top of this, buyers have up to six months to reject a product or service for the reasons set out above. However, they must give providers a chance to repair or replace the offending purchase. If either isn’t possible, a refund is due.
After six months, the customer may still be entitled to some money back if it would be reasonable to expect the product to last for any reasonable spell. However, they may need to argue their case in court.
Of course, there’s a lot more in the CRA than just timescales for rejecting dodgy purchases, as we found when scrutinising the T&C of 10 leading retailers.
Timescales and remedies
Several retailers’ policies could confuse customers looking to reject items and potentially deny them their legal rights.
House of Fraser states that customers have 30 days to return faulty goods for a full refund. This statement is wrong on two counts, as customers have far longer than 30 days to tell the retailer they are rejecting an item, let alone return it. It also ignores the right to reject not just faulty goods, but also those that aren’t ‘as described’.
Primark gives customers 28 days to return goods, while Dorothy Perkins gives customers 14 days to send items by post or 28 days for store returns. Habitat is even worse, requiring notification of ‘defects’ within seven days.
Both B&Q and Homebase give customers 45 days to reject the goods for a full refund. While 45 days appears generous and more than covers the 30-day right to reject, it falls short of the six-month right to a repair or replacement, followed by a refund if neither remedies work.
Two of the retailers we investigated overlooked the right to reject if a purchase is not ‘as described’.
John Lewis’s policy states: “Unless faulty, please return any unwanted items within 35 days of purchase or receipt of your order”, while Toys R Us dictates: “If you have received a damaged or faulty item from us you can return it for a repair, replacement or refund.”
Free returns
If being urged to meeting spurious returns deadlines isn’t bad enough, there’s also the potential cost of posting the unwanted items. The CRA states providers must bear “any reasonable costs” of returning faulty or misdescribed items, other than costs incurred by returning items in person.
However, not all providers play by the rules. New Look and Toys R Us will not refund delivery costs incurred, while House of Fraser will only reimburse return delivery costs on faulty items.
Show me the money
According to the Consumer Rights Act, a refund must be given “within 14 days beginning with the day on which the trader agrees that the consumer is entitled to a refund”.
Yet several retailers impose a longer refund period. Dorothy Perkins requires customers to “allow 28 days from the day the parcel is posted for your refund to be processed”. Habitat’s policy requires the customer to wait “28 days from notice of cancellation”.
Payment in kind …
After going to the trouble of returning faulty or misdescribed goods, you would expect to be refunded in the same way you paid, and you’d be right. The CRA dictates: “If the consumer paid money under the contract, the trader must give the refund using the same means of payment as the consumer used, unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise.”
House of Fraser gives customers 30 days to return faulty goods for a full refund, but confusingly, the company’s T&Cs state: “You have up to 35 days to return your unwanted goods to make an exchange or receive a gift card (in-store return) or eVoucher (warehouse return).”
There is no acknowledgement of the right to reject faulty goods or misdescribed items at all and receive a refund in the same way the item was paid for, should an exchange or repair not be possible.
Proof of purchase
According to the CRA, there is no requirement to produce a receipt or delivery document as proof of purchase. Government advice states: “You can ask the customer for proof that they bought an item from you. This could be a sales receipt or other evidence such as a bank statement or packaging.”
Despite this, a few retailers specify the type of proof of purchase they will accept. Without a “receipt, order confirmation or delivery note”, John Lewis will issue “a gift card to the value of the current selling price.”
Similarly, Toys R Us defines its proof of purchase as a “receipt or delivery note”. Without either, refunds will be given “at the discretion of management” and in the form of a credit note. B&Q only accepts a receipt or sales invoice as proof of purchase, while Primark requires a till receipt.
Your statutory rights
If companies produce a returns policy, they need to ensure that consumers know that this is in addition to their rights afforded them by laws such as the Consumer Rights Act. Including a statement along the lines of “your statutory rights are not affected” is not good enough, as the average person is unlikely to know what it means.
According to Mark Woloshak, a consumer law expert at law firm Slater and Gordon, companies may need to rethink their approach: “If a seller is advising customers of a returns policy that is less generous than that afforded by the Consumer Rights Act, but stipulates that statutory rights are not affected by them, it might potentially breach the fairness regime contained in the Consumer Rights Act.”
“What the companies appear to be advising customers here is not inaccurate. It could, however, be seen as not being as clear as could be expected and could therefore be considered misleading.”
Unenforceable rights?
You may have 30 days on rejecting an item to claim your right to a full refund, or up to six months to ensure an exchange, a repair or failing that a refund. However, Martyn James, from consumer rights group Resolver, believes falling foul of a company’s returns policy is a real possibility: “It’s unbelievable how opaque or in some cases downright dishonest most retailers are about the rights you have under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Up to a third of the shopping-related complaints we see involve some kind of breach of the CRA.”
In theory, companies can receive a hefty fine, but according to Trading Standards this is unlikely to happen, as Peter Stonley, lead officer at the Trading Standard Institute, told us: “If a trader does not accept a consumer’s request to reject, the consumer would have to sue them or go through an alternative dispute resolution scheme.
“The only time regulatory sanctions could be used against a trader not responding to a consumer’s legitimate right to reject would be through an enforcement order under the Enterprise Act. We would be looking at a rogue trader rather than one that simply (for whatever reason) did not give a refund when they should have.”
With no authority willing to take on providers who fail to abide by CRA requirements, your best bet is to make every effort to mediate with the retailer. You could sue, but unless your faulty product cost a bomb, this isn’t a viable option.
What the retailers said…
We put our findings to the 10 retailers. B&Q told us that should a product “purchased [after the 45 days’ full refund period] be faulty or not as described, we will offer an exchange, refund or repair as appropriate.”
Homebase confirmed they would be amending their returns policy in the light of our investigation, while Habitat told us: “We are already in the process of making our terms and conditions even clearer for customers.”
Primark welcomed our findings and responded by saying it will be amending its policy wording. A spokesperson said: “Going forward, we will split out information on refunds for faulty goods and refunds for returns where a customer has simply changed their mind.”
New Look said it will be reviewing and making necessary updates to returns policy wording, but assured us that the 28-day limits do not apply to faulty or misdescribed products.
John Lewis and Oasis told us their legal teams regularly review their policies and are confident they are compliant with the Act. The other retailers did not comment on our findings.
Getting it right
Despite finding 10 retailers whose returns policies contained potentially misleading aspects, plenty of other shops appear to have no problem with getting it right. For example, Argos and French Connection provide clear summaries of the rights afforded customers under the CRA, after explaining their own returns policies. If they can do it, why can’t the rest?
“My rug did not fit the website description"
Diana Hughes, 45 (pictured above), from Hythe in Kent, is no stranger to contacting the customer service department of various retailers. After all she understands how they work, as she works in one such department for an international transport operator.
Most recently, she managed to secure a refund on a hallway runner she bought online. The rug was not as described on the website she bought It from, and so she complained.
She told us: “It didn’t fit the description at all. It was washed out and didn’t even have the same pattern. It was supposed to be hand woven, but was obviously stencilled. I quoted my rights, pointing out it wasn’t as described, and I got a refund without needing to send the rug back.”
Top tips for rejecting goods
The Consumer Rights Act covers goods and services that have failed due to a fault or because they are not as described. This includes digital items such as DVDs and software, and personalised items that are faulty or not as described.
- Contact the company by phone and email as soon as you are aware of a problem (keep a record of all correspondence).
- Take photos of any physical evidence of the fault, or issue, plus of any serial number for the item. Scan supporting documents, such as receipts, so you have a record.
- When rejecting and returning items quote the Consumer Rights Act in all correspondence if the company’s policy appears to offer less than your legal rights.
- If you meet with resistance, contact the company’s complaint department or head office. Consumer rights bodies such as Resolver.co.uk and Moneysavingexpert.com have resources, such as template letters and advice sheets, which can help you with a claim.
Dan Moore is a personal finance and consumer rights journalist who previously worked for Which? and has written for publications including The Times, FT Adviser and French Property News.
Section
Free Tag
Related stories
Source Moneywise http://ift.tt/2zvh4VO
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق