Distance selling regulations

Ask them?

Its pretty shitty behaviour IMO  You return it in a box that has been opened and its now only second hand value to the shop so will cost them money

It's "The Consumer Rights Act 2015" you need to look at...just google it..

Although a complaint such as 'the UI is a bit laggy' is quite a subjective complaint, especialy if you are buying a cheapo jobbie...so may not hold up, legally speaking.

I'd hang fire and read more reviews of the product from more sources if possible. If you are already having doubts, I mean if the product is at the bottom end of the market, price wise, it would be unrealistic to expect it to be as zippy as a product costing two or three times more.

Random example, but a £150 samsung tablet is going to be crap compared to a £500 one.

Refer to Consumer Rights Act and Consumer Contract Regulations to understand your rights.
It's an electronic item - how do you check it operates properly without turning it on?
You have 14 days to return for full refund.
If you're concerned about the UI (possibly) being '...a bit laggy' don't buy it.
A perception of 'shitty behaviour' is irrelevant; the only relevant consideration is the legislation.
Online retailers *should* be fully aware of their legal obligations.

Distance Selling Regulations hasn't existed in years.

It’s “The Consumer Rights Act 2015” you need to look at…just google it..

It's not in this case, it's Consumer Contract Regulations.

Under CRA you have a right to return for a refund within 30 days if the goods prove to be faulty.

Under CCR you have a right to reject goods without requiring to provide any reason within 14 days of receipt if bought unseen (eg, online). You may be liable for return postage costs here, in which case this should be made clear to you ahead of purchase.

how do you check it operates properly

It may well operate properly/ as designed, but that may not be up to the OPs expectations. What does the law say then? The shop has to take the hit?

If you aren’t sure, do more research, if that inconclusive, buy something you have more confidence in.

without requiring to provide any reason

even if you’ve used it?

What does the law say then? The shop has to take the hit?

Yes.

even if you’ve used it?

It depends what you mean by "used." If you've taken it out of the box and decided that it's the wrong shade of blue then absolutely. If you've run three ultra-marathons in it and dragged a sheet of wet & dry over the face then perhaps not so much.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34

(8) The trader must not impose any fee on the consumer in respect of the reimbursement.

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount 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, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

Surely the CRA isn’t intended to be a Try and Buy service though? Ie give someone 2weeks use of something for free, that’s way further than what you get using a bricks and mortar shop?

that’s way further than what you get using a bricks and mortar shop?

Where you are able to try it out and make an informed decision, or not buy it if they won't let you.

Surely the CRA isn’t intended to be a Try and Buy service though? Ie give someone 2weeks use of something for free, that’s way further than what you get using a bricks and mortar shop?

a) (again) it's not CRA, it's CCR and

b) that's absolutely what it is, because in a shop you'd be able to inspect it before handing over the money. An ex of mine used to routinely buy dresses in two or three different sizes and return whichever didn't fit. The alternative would be "sorry you bought this and it turned out to be shit, too bad, never mind." The retailer can of course take up any issues/returns with the distributor or supplier, but that's their problem not the consumer's.

How long do you get to inspect something in a shop? You don’t get to open the packaging and play with whatever it is. (A demo item isn’t the same as opening a box). Pretty sure your ex couldn’t return something that had been used, more than just trying on, say nipping down the pub?

I returned some shoes I had bought online that didn’t fit to a bricks and mortar shop and the assistant went over them with a fine tooth comb to check they hadn’t been used outside (they hadn’t)

The CRA and CCR provide consumer rights for
in person and online purchases respectively.
That's all that matters.
Know your rights and be prepared to enforce them, if necessary.

So I buy a new shirt, in a shop, wear it to the pub that evening, get all manor of stuff spilled and stained on it, and it’s ripped. I can take it back as it doesn’t repel stains to my standard or doesn’t me my durability standards? I’d be laughed out the shop, no?

Or drop a brick on a new iPad to test its durability, which it fails, I can return that too?

@cougar has it right..

If you buy something online (un-inspected) you don't know weather the colour is going to match your curtains or whatever.

However, saying it's a bit laggy, is very much more subjective, if it works, it works, and that's not grounds for a return.

In the case of a smart watch/gps watch... unless it's really been miss-sold in terms of functionality, it's not really going to wash, legally speaking.

looking at the website, they are pretty expensive, so I'd expect a premium product :

https://www.suunto.com/en-gb/Products/sports-watches/suunto-race/suunto-race-all-black/

Disclaimer, I don't know diddly squat about smart watches, but for £400+ I'd expect something pretty high end, but how the law defines laggy V's smooth is really subjective, asuming the device is actually functional.

I repeat myself, OP, if you are having doubts, hang fire on the purchase and maybe try to reaserch the product more, especially if you are already reading reviews that suggest it's not quite as good as the price tag suggests.

Don’t most T’s & C’s have a clause that’s says it had to be in a retailable condition if you send something back for no reason/it’s not faulty? hence why a lot of electronics have a sticker you pull out to access the battery, thus waiving any claim you may have to not having used the item?

If you buy something online (un-inspected) you don’t know weather the colour is going to match your curtains or whatever.

I’m fine with that, its the ‘don’t need to give a reason, even if its been used by the consumer’ I’m questioning.

tom - go read the regs.
You *know* you're posting fatuous 'examples'.

So I buy a new shirt, in a shop, wear it to the pub that evening, get all manor of stuff spilled and stained on it, and it’s ripped. I can take it back as it doesn’t repel stains to my standard or doesn’t me my durability standards? I’d be laughed out the shop, no?

Or drop a brick on a new iPad to test its durability, which it fails, I can return that too?

I already answered this. Read back.

However, saying it’s a bit laggy, is very much more subjective, if it works, it works, and that’s not grounds for a return.

Yes it is. You're still conflating CCR and CRA.

Under Consumer Contracts Regulations you can return goods bought unseen within 14 days of receipt without being required to provide a reason. That's it, fin, what may or may not be subjective is irrelevant.

There are exclusions. If as our sceptical friend keeps suggesting you've trashed it then your rights are lessened of course. If it's something bespoke (like say you'd had the watch engraved with your name) then it doesn't apply, etc and indeed etc. But for regular remote purchases, under CCR you have a cooling-off period, you can cancel the sale and boot it back from whence it came simply because you don't want it.

TBH it can be pretty difficult just to grasp the CCR because the rights it gives you are strong, it feels unintuitive, especially in the modern big-business world. I reckon that if everyone knew them and used them to their fullest it'd be almost unsustainable, but it works because loads of people don't. But never feel bad for insisting on your legal minimum rights people, returns are a cost of business for online selling just like rent and such are a cost of business for bricks and mortar shops.

tomhoward
Full Member

Don’t most T’s & C’s have a clause that’s says it had to be in a retailable condition if you send something back for no reason/it’s not faulty?

Lots do but they're trumped by the law, in practice it just tells you that you might have a bit of a fight, so you might also want to think about whether it'll be worth it if they decide to stand by their unenforcable rules.

Think I may have missed some post editing here…

But for regular remote purchases, under CCR you have a cooling-off period, you can cancel the sale and boot it back from whence it came simply because you don’t want it.

I'm fine with that, my question was if there are any limitations on how used something has been, before someone decided they don’t want something.

Don’t most T’s & C’s have a clause that’s says it had to be in a retailable condition if you send something back for no reason/it’s not faulty?

Again, I've already explained this, read back.

Fun fact, T&Cs cannot override statutory rights. That's what "statutory" means.

hence why a lot of electronics have a sticker you pull out to access the battery, thus waiving any claim you may have to not having used the item?

Well, I mean... that's just nonsense you've made up. Electronics have a plastic tab covering the battery so that there's still electrons in it when you buy it.

Think I may have missed some post editing here…

Fair. I'll hold my hand up here, I'm terrible for "... ooh, and another thing" editing. Apologies, it is not my intention to mislead.

But for regular remote purchases, under CCR you have a cooling-off period, you can cancel the sale and boot it back from whence it came simply because you don’t want it.

I’m fine with that, my question was if there are any limitations on how used something has been, before someone decided they don’t want something.

I quoted the legislation earlier on. A retailer is allowed to take into account any loss of value when issuing a refund, though they cannot just blanket go "yeah, restocking fee."

Someone mentioned returning shoes earlier. The retailer may be within their rights to go "you've worn them outside so their value has dropped by an amount," they would not be in their rights to say "you've worn them outside so **** off."

(Anecdotally, the last time I bought running shoes it was from a high street shop and they had me take half a dozen pairs on a run round the block.)

Yes it is. You’re still conflating CCR and CRA.

It's a salient point, and I agree with you , Cougar, but the confusion here seems to be very subjective.

You can't expect a £300 laptop to be as good as a £1500 Dell alienware or whatever...

In what rationale could you 'buy', 'use for a few days', and then return it (for arguments sake) in pristine condition, on the basis that it's 'laggy' compared to a much more expensive product?

It's a bit like a lass 'buying' an expensive dress for a night out, and then returning it on Monday for a refund/different dress for next friday... rince and repeat, businesses cannot operate like that, they will simply go bust, and they do when returns policies are too generous.

the confusion here seems to be very subjective.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but I do not believe that I'm confused. 😁

You can’t expect a £300 laptop to be as good as a £1500 Dell alienware or whatever…

Absolutely. This is covered in CRA, goods have to be of "satisfactory quality" and you've hit the nail on the head here.

In what rationale could you ‘buy’, ‘use for a few days’, and then return it (for arguments sake) in pristine condition, on the basis that it’s ‘laggy’ compared to a much more expensive product?

You don't need a rationale. Under CCR the only relevant rationale is "I've changed my mind." You are cancelling the contract of sale and you don't need to justify it.

If on the other hand you're returning it as 'faulty' because you perceive it to be laggy then that is a different scenario and we're back to CRA.

I know I keep banging this drum but it is an important distinction. These are two separate pieces of legislation which provide different rights and perform different duties. If you're planning on playing the "I know my rights" card when finding out that you've bought a pup then it's a good idea to know which rights you're knowing.

I'm not arguing, you are right, but the OP stated, and I quote:

I’m wondering if it’s taking the proverbial to buy one but return it if it’s too laggy.

Well, define laggy? compared to what? A ZX Spectrum?

define laggy?

Why?

There are precisely two scenarios here:

1) OP buys a watch online, likes it, keeps it.

2) OP buys a watch online, doesn't like it, sends it back.

There is nothing further to be defined.

Also, my ZX Spectrum running at 28MHz is rather snappy.

2) OP buys a watch online, doesn’t like it, sends it back.

Sure... fair enough, as long as it's sent back in pristine condition, but the retailer is still gonna take a hit on that as it's now 2nd hand/B class, so they can no longer sell it at full price as brand new.

Imagine how angry you feel as a consumer, if you paid full price for something, only to find out it was a re-packaged return item. The fact it's probably perfectly working is almost irellevent, as it may have been returned purely on the basis that the first owner thought it was a bit laggy, (or they just fancied using it for a few days) but it's still not brand new, and cannot be sold as such.

Imagine how angry you feel as a consumer, if you paid full price for something, only to find out it was a re-packaged return item.

Imagine how angry you'd feel as a consumer if you'd paid full price for something only to find out it was a re-packaged return item and you couldn't trivially return it just because you didn't want it. Imagine how often someone posts on STW asking for a laptop recommendation and the first suggestion is the Dell 'refurb' outlet. Imagine going to a clothing shop, trying on a pair of shoes or a shirt, decided "nope" and being obliged to buy them anyway rather than returning them to the shelf.

In any case. I don't pretend to know the quirks and mores of retail sales, but accepting returns is part of that process. Accepting rejected goods which were sold unseen is an overhead for selling online rather than having to pay for the upkeep of high street premises. What happens to those goods subsequently I don't know but I don't really care and as a consumer I shouldn't have to care, it's the (legally protected) cost of doing business.

Of course if you make excessive numbers of return a retailer can decline to keep you as a customer.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/13/amazon-waitrose-customer-banned-complaints-returning-too-much

Amazed my wife has never fallen foul if this with the percentage of clothes orders she returns.

you couldn’t trivially return it just because you didn’t want it.

Maybe you shouldn't have 'bought it' in the first first place then, if you didn't want it?

Whats the current buzz word for that? "**** about and find out."

YouTube reviews are great for this, they will show you how laggy it is.  It's a watch though, it's got to be pretty slow to actually interfere with usage as you'll quickly learn how many taps/presses are required to get to a certain function.

Cougar - there is a third option you missed in the post a few above but include4d in a post above that:

If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount 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, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

IMO opening a box meets this standard certainly in a case like this

The OP asked if it was taking the proverbial and IMO it clearly is

I think it is fine to do what you are suggesting.  I return loads of things for various reasons (none of which matter as I don't need a reason).

Things like shoes have to be taken out of box and need to be tried on to see if they fit, what am I supposed to do if they don't fit keep them because that is somehow morally correct?

More than happy for the shops to charge return postage as it is me who wants to try the item.  I do however, go out of my way to ensure it is packaged back up exactly as it came out of courtesy.

Physical shops have huge additional overheads that online businesses do not. The slight downside of this is that online customers have the right to inspect items and return them if they are not what they expected/wanted. If an online retailer hasn't factored in the cost of these legal obligations, that's not the fault of the customer.

Actual shops already have to put up with the actual pisstake of people browsing there, then going away and buying cheaper online, so if anything, we should be encouraging customers to use distance selling rights more, not less.

Thanks for the thoughts. Just to clarify - it's a Suunto Race, so not cheap (but also not stupidly expensive as watches go). It's an awkward one as I'd literally be taking it out of the box, peeling off the screen protector, turning it on, and flicking through the menus.

For what it's worth I'm quite relaxed about receiving an open-box item from an online store, knowing that I've sent stuff back before because I didn't like the look of it when opening the box.

I ordered a heated airer from lakeland over christmas, to try and deal with the non stop stream of washing generated by 3 kids.

Its crap. Stuff just ends up hot and wet. It says on the box "costs pennies to run", as its only 300W, but you need it on for 3 days striaght to stand a chance of drying anything, so a load costs 2 quid + to dry.

Lakeland will do return for up to two years, for any reason. I phoned up, said i thought it was rubbish, and she had no issue with me returning it a issued a full refund.

Two components i do take issue with,

1) I was very careful to keep the packaging and send it back as they sent it to me.

 "oh no, stuff that extra bit back in the box with it in a way that will definatly wreck both products, thats fine"

Pretty sure theyre just going to skip it (it is crap to be fair)

2) they never picked it up, and i still have it boxed up waiting to go. Perhaps i should be grateful that ive saved it from land fill, and get to keep it cost free. But its still crap, and still cluttering up my house.

For distance selling (including Argos where you cant see it before you buy it), ive always assumed/pressumed that you dont need any reason at all to return it, as youve not had chance to look at it.

Buying clothes in 3 sizes and returning the two that dont fit is totally normal.

I would have no problem buying your watch and turning it on. If the shops dont like it, dont distance sell. 

If its your choice, rather than their fault, expect to pay return postage. "Free returns" is a perk.

peeling off the screen protector,

Why do you need to do that, though?

Buying clothes in 3 sizes and returning the two that dont fit is totally normal.

Really?  Its amoral for sure.

Why? If you go into a physical shop to buy the clothes, you'll try on three sizes and pick the one that fits you. The whole point of DSR is to replicate, as far as possible, that level of consumer choice and protection when shopping online. The online store has massive financial advantages to the bricks and mortar one, and the cost of returns, as well the the cost of re-marketing them, should be part of that business model. If that option wasn't offered, very few people would buy clothes/shoes online.

As far as morality goes, the burden falls on the online retailer to avoid waste.

Its amoral for sure.

It's a business transaction protected by law, morals don't come into it. I'll admit I haven't read the entire legislation end-to-end but I do not recall seeing a "taking the piss" clause being defined.

Really?  Its amoral for sure.

Shops actual advise that you do this.  It saves postage and logistic for multiple purchases and ties them into a single transaction.

OP - buy from Amazon - their system is setup specifically for online purchases and their TnCs allow for handling of the goods which includes open box inspection.

Of course if you make excessive numbers of return a retailer can decline to keep you as a customer.
> https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/13/amazon-waitrose-customer-banned-complaints-returning-too-much < Amazed my wife has never fallen foul if this with the percentage of clothes orders she returns.

"Banned" is strong language but yes, a company is not obliged to do business with you. The same is true over the counter, so if say there's a pricing error or they have a policy not to accept £50 notes and you're standing there squawking about legal tender then they're well within their rights to simply not sell you something.

In the case of the woman in the article, I'm speculating of course but given she's been refused further service from multiple unconnected places I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was her trying to blag discounts and freebies. Her complaints may well be legitimate of course, but either way there is clearly something wrong with the process which the retailers have been unable to resolve and so they've decided it's in neither party's interests to continue to accept her purchases.

Its amoral for sure.

Incidentally,

Remind me again how much tax some large corporations aren't paying? Yet it's amoral to buy a watch and send it back because you don't like it after having seen it in the flesh?

Neither party is doing anything wrong in these scenarios, both are operating within the law. If you think that's wrong according to some unwritten moral code you've just made up then it's the legislation which needs amending to reflect that.

I thought you of all people TJ would be the last person to be advocating for fewer consumer rights.