Refunds on postage for faulty items

[jimbouk]

Further to a couple of thread on the Scan care forum, I was wondering what people opinions on the customer being out of pocket having obtained a faulty item.

Sites such as Ebuyer have a clear policy on this, allowing items to be collected or posted with a maximum value of £4 for refund. Scan do not have clear information regarding this, and it turns out will not refund should you wish to post the item myself rather than using their courier (which will cost you £15 should the item not be faulty).

Personally having an item collected is not an option for me as this will require taking time off work resulting in a loss of earning. I have recently given up on an RMA from Scan and will just write off the £25 cost of the item, however will probably not order from them again.

So overall what do people think about the possibility of being out of pocket through no fault of your own? Should companies offer refunded postage by default? Do you think returns policies should be clearly explained?

NB. this thread was started due to Scan's policies, however is asking for general thoughts on all traders.

[peterb]

If you buy from a retailer in full knowledge of their policies, then I don't think you really have grounds for complaint. If you don't like the policy, shop elsewhere, yiou may pay a little extra but if it gives you peace of mind it may be worth it. Value for Money doesn't always mean 'the cheapest'!

However if the policy isn't clear, then you might have grounds for complaint - so check first. As in most things, 'buyer beware'. The same principle applies to items added by default to the shopping basket - always check before you press that final 'confirm order' - whoever the retailer is, and regardless of whether you have shopped with them before.

[The_Wheelhouse]

Generally it is the retailers problem to collect the goods, if the goods were DOA then it would normally breach the sales of goods act, you should be given a refund from the retailer for the price of the contract, including delivery. The retailer also has a right to get back the goods, but really at there expense. If i were you i would demand that the courier pick up the goods at a time to suite you.

[jimbouk]

However if the policy isn't clear, then you might have grounds for complaint

Good point, half of my original grumble was the lack of information. No that I know the policy I will vote with my wallet as my time is worth far more than a couple of pounds difference in price. I made an assumption about good quality of service based on other e-tailors due to the lack of information, my mistake I guess.

Generally it is the retailers problem to collect the goods ... If i were you i would demand that the courier pick up the goods at a time to suite you.

I wonder how far you'd get with a refund if you can do pick-up between the hours of 7pm and 9pm at your home address only! I have never had a collection for faulty good before though, always just posted back and been refunded for postage which is far more convenient.

[Rob_B]

I'd be interested to know what it costs Scan to arrange the 'free collection' Surely it wouldn't be beyond the realms of sensibility to refund the amount it would have cost them if they'd collected it (even if it's not what you paid to post it?)

[Saracen]

Further to a couple of thread on the Scan care forum, I was wondering what people opinions on the customer being out of pocket having obtained a faulty item.
....

I haven't read any threads in Scan care, but I'd say a lot depends on what you mean by "faulty".

If we're talking about goods just bought, and that were faulty on supply, then yes, absolutely I;d say any costs incurred in getting the goods back to the supplier are their responsibility providing they know and accept those costs. Sending it back in a cab, and sticking them for a £100 bill would not, obviously, be reasonable.

But .... given that in those circumstances, they're in breach of contract for supplying faulty goods, then neither is them then expecting you to take a day off work to wait for their courier. The breach is theirs, and so should be the resulting costs.

But then, assuming the goods have just been bought, the simplest way is to cancel using the Distance Selling Regs and get the money you paid, including standard outbound shipping, refunded. If the goods being cancelled are faulty, then that is the exception in the Distance Selling Regs to the buyer being responsible for the cost of getting the goods back to the supplier. And it's worth remembering that, once cancelled (in a manner that complies with the DSR) and assuming the buyer is a consumer, that refund is mandatory, and is not contingent on the goods being received back. So .... it may be that they can be collected at a convenient time (evening or weekend), or it may be that they can be collected from a neighbour or relative, or from the office. Or it may be that a refund could be agreed for a reasonable cost to ship back. But in any event, in those circumstances, getting them back is the retailers responsibility not the buyers.

After the DSR has expired, it's a bit less clear.A lot would depend on why goods were faulty, and indeed, when it happened. For up to 6 years (England and Wales) you might have a claim for repair/replacement, or damages if goods go faulty. Your case is much stronger in the first 6 months than it is subsequently, and the burden of proof over the nature of the fault switches after 6 months, but "damages" will be due if the fault is such that the seller is in breach of contract, and that includes reasonable and necessary costs, like shipping the goods back to the seller.

But it's always worth bearing in mind that you can't wave a magic sand and compel a seller to pay you,so if they refuse, you will ultimately end up either taking them to small claims court, or giving up and writing it off. Assuming you're determined enough (or obstinate enough) and take it to court, a lot will depend on being able to establish that what you've done is reasonable. If you've offered to have collection arranged from a neighbour or office and it's been refused, and you've offered collection at a convenient time and been refused, and you've offered to have it shipped via a standard courier and that's been refused (apparently because it's more expensive that using the seller's contracted courier), and the only option the seller will accept is a daytime collection that involves you in losses from taking a day off, then it's highly likely the court would agree to reimburse you for the cost of taking the day off, as well as the courier fees.

Courts generally take the attitude that this type of thing did not ought to end up before a court at all. It's really wasting the court's time on things that sensible people ought to be able to sort out reasonably for themselves, and that if one party is reasonable and the other party unreasonable, the unreasonable one is very likely to lose, and eminently likely to get punished for it with any feasible and reasonable costs being awarded. They also tend to lean towards the individual, especially if a large company is being obstructive.

I spoke to a "judge" in a small claims court about this, and his comments were broadly as above. Nothing is ever certain, but by and large, a genuine dispute between two sides both of whom are being reasonable but just can't agree will generally be arbitrated even-handedly, but if one side is being awkward or petty and that's why the case ended up in court, they're very likely to end up regretting it.

Of course, "faulty" can cover a multitude of situations .... including faulty because the goods have been misused or abused, or even outright damaged. It's also far from uncommon for consumers to try it on, and try to stitch retailers up, and retailers know that.

So by and large, for goods that are genuinely faulty, and either within 6 months of purchase or where you can prove the fault, then the retailer is liable for most reasonable expenses that directly result, including shipping ... but if push comes to shove, you may have to demonstrate to a court that both the fact that you incurred those expenses, AND that they are reasonable in size. It will also generally have to be expenses that the retailer could reasonably have anticipated. They can anticipate shipping costs for faulty goods, but can't predict that you might lose £50,000 in profit if you miss a deadline because your PC packed up, so that kind of this won't fly.

[dshepsman]

So by and large, for gods that are genuinely faulty

personally, i am never faulty, genuinely or otherwise

[jimbouk]

Cheers for the in depth response Saracen! I'm guessing you'd just be proving a point going to court over postage costs so companies think they can get away with it.

I was trying to make this thread not about a particular company, but it looks like Scan have removed the posts from their section of the forum which stated their policy on refunds of returns postage (ie not to). Given that they will charge you £15 for collection should the item not be found faulty (and hoping they aren't ripping you off) then this indicates that they believe £15 is a reasonable expense for returning goods - until they reconsider their policy then they've lost a customer.

[Methanoid]

I fail to see the point of this... if the item IS faulty then Scan pay costs.. Their policy seems fair if the goods are NOT faulty.

If you're concerned that Scan would somehow claim they are working fine just to scam you of £15 thats another matter. If I ever have any doubts over a company I call a friend over to double check and if necessary act as a witness that they were faulty.

I'm concerned over a current DSR return I have with ANOTHER company currently. As their returns people were being VERY pissy on the phone when I asked to return (as is my right) then I decided to implement "safety procedures".

I think you're being paranoid about Scan here. I've had RMAs there with no issues for the 20 years I've been buying from them. I've had the odd argument but I think they're honest people.

[CaptainCrash]

I fail to see the point of this... if the item IS faulty then Scan pay costs.

It seems Scan would have their customers believe otherwise.

Many responses to that thread were edited out even before Scan threw a hissy fit and locked it, but the upshot is if you try to return faulty goods by any means other than Scan's own "free" collection service (which is only free if your time is worthless), it's Scan's policy to tell you to eff off.

This "wesleyaldred" character is at it again today.

[jim]

And of course it's worth mentioning that their "free" collection service costs you around £20 if the item is not found faulty. Plus £25 not-found-faulty fee, plus £7 carriage, so £52 if the item isn't faulty.

Not surprising that people don't want to use it really.

[GoNz0]

i was lucky that i have to visit city link every day so i could drop off my returns.

[CaptainCrash]

And of course it's worth mentioning that their "free" collection service costs you around £20 if the item is not found faulty. Plus £25 not-found-faulty fee, plus £7 carriage, so £52 if the item isn't faulty.

Not surprising that people don't want to use it really.

I guess that's a slightly different issue really. I suppose in all fairness if an item *isn't* faulty (ie the buyer has made an error), then Scan shouldn't be expected to pick up the return postage costs, which is not to say they have a right to exploit the situation.

If an item is faulty however, there's no two ways about it - Scan have a duty to reimburse any reasonable postage costs incurred, and they're presenting themselves in a poor light by continuing to claim otherwise.

[jim]

I guess that's a slightly different issue really. I suppose in all fairness if an item *isn't* faulty (ie the buyer has made an error), then Scan shouldn't be expected to pick up the return postage costs, which is not to say they have a right to exploit the situation.

If an item is faulty however, there's no two ways about it - Scan have a duty to reimburse any reasonable postage costs incurred, and they're presenting themselves in a poor light by continuing to claim otherwise.

What I'm saying is that it's all well and good calling it "free collection", but if the item is found not faulty then my "free" collection costs £20.

Personally, I'd rather risk getting no refund of £8 via Royal Mail than risk paying £20 - so it's hardly free.

[CaptainCrash]

What I'm saying is that it's all well and good calling it "free collection", but if the item is found not faulty then my "free" collection costs £20.

Personally, I'd rather risk getting no refund of £8 via Royal Mail than risk paying £20 - so it's hardly free.

Oh, I see what you mean - yes, and the accusation by "wesleyaldred" that someone who paid £8.65 to send goods back had "simply opted for the most premium and most expensive option available from Royal Mail" is more or less adding insult to injury.

[Saracen]

I fail to see the point of this... if the item IS faulty then Scan pay costs.. Their policy seems fair if the goods are NOT faulty.

If you're concerned that Scan would somehow claim they are working fine just to scam you of £15 thats another matter. If I ever have any doubts over a company I call a friend over to double check and if necessary act as a witness that they were faulty.

I don't see it as fair if goods are genuinely faulty, unless I'm misreading what's being said here.

For the sake of argument, assume the goods are faulty. If they aren't it's another situation, but assume they are and that that is not in dispute.

What Scan appear to be saying is that because they offer a "free" service, they will not refund costs incurred by returning goods to them. The trouble is that that "free" service isn't free if you have to lose the value of a day's pay by taking time off that you ONLY have to take off to return that are faulty. You are incurring the cost of the loss of that day's pay because of a breach of contract for supplying faulty goods.

If such a case were to go to small claims court, and the claimant was to win, it is very likely that any genuine costs, including having to take time off, or the reasonable cost of return postage, would be awarded to the claimant.

Ultimately, to get a categoric answer to who pays what, you need a decision from a court, and in this type of situation, that means Small Claims track of the County Court. This is because the decision will depend on the precise assessment of some deliberately loose terms, like "reasonable" and significant". We can infer the principles from the way legislation is phrased, but finally, the legislation is phrased in such as way as to put the matter into the hands of the judge to determine what's "reasonable", etc.

Look at the phrasing of the sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), and in particular, 48B(2) (a) and (b), with the bits highlighted (by me) in bold :-

48B Repair or replacement of the goods

 

1. If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
   
   1. to repair the goods, or
      
   2. to replace the goods.
   
   
   
2. If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
   
   
   1. repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
      
   2. bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
   
   
   
3. The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
   
   
   1. impossible, or
   2. disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
   3. disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
   
   
   
4. One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
   
   1. the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
   2. the significance of the lack of conformity, and
   3. whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
   
   
   
5. Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—
   
   
   1. the nature of the goods, and
   2. the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

So .... if goods are faulty, the retailer is liable for any necessary costs. Is it "necessary" to return goods via a paid-for courier when Scan offer a "free" service? Only a judge can tell you. If by using the "free" service, you incur other costs, such as lost pay, is that "necessary".

I asked a friend that IS a judge on the Small Claims circuit for a comment, and their response was that a general opinion would be that it was unreasonable to expect an individual to lose a day's pay (or a day's holiday entitlement) to return faulty goods, because that would be "significant inconvenience to the buyer", as per the Act. So if a retailer were to insist on using their own courier and be unable to collect from office, neighbour etc (and that won't be possible for all people) then they would award the loss of the day's pay. The comment was added that if that were the ONLY reason the case ended up before the court, then they would view that attitude as entirely unreasonable and the retailer would be likely to end up paying any other costs that were within the judge's discretion, because they do not approve of either side not being reasonable.

Of course, they also pointed out that that is one reaction, based on the story as portrayed and that the only way to decide the case would be to hear it, and that the same attitude may not prevail in all courts.

But his leaning was clear - a retailer that refused reasonable postage costs on faulty goods in his court would regret it if it came before him.