RMA refund of carriage?

Is it not the case that vendors are responsible for refunding the initial
carriage costs when faulty goods are returned?

Matt



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 19/07/2003

"Matt" wrote in message
...
Is it not the case that vendors are responsible for refunding the initial
carriage costs when faulty goods are returned?

Matt



If you order something and it arrives faulty you are enititled to a refund
of all charges including carriage

It depends. As far as I know, if you order the item and it's DOA, and you
return it for a refund, then yes, I think they are responsible for the
initial carriage charge. If the item develops a fault after a period of
time, say 14 days, and you return it for a refund then they're don't have to
refund the initial carriage charge, and if it's a return to base warranty,
they don't have to refund the cost of returning the item to them.


"Matt" wrote in message
...
Is it not the case that vendors are responsible for refunding the initial
carriage costs when faulty goods are returned?

Matt



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 19/07/2003

"Andy" wrote in message
...
It depends. As far as I know, if you order the item and it's DOA, and you
return it for a refund, then yes, I think they are responsible for the
initial carriage charge. If the item develops a fault after a period of
time, say 14 days, and you return it for a refund then they're don't have
to
refund the initial carriage charge,

The items turned up faulty, so yes I think I should have been reimbursed the
carriage paid. This is how I thought the law stood.

I'm going to email them and point out their "mistake". Cheeky buggers. Took
over a month to pay me back as well.

Matt


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:07:56 +0100, "Andy"
wrote:

It depends. As far as I know, if you order the item and it's DOA, and you
return it for a refund, then yes, I think they are responsible for the
initial carriage charge. If the item develops a fault after a period of
time, say 14 days, and you return it for a refund then they're don't have to
refund the initial carriage charge, and if it's a return to base warranty,
they don't have to refund the cost of returning the item to them.

The supplier is responsible for all carriage charges if the item
fails within 6 months of purchase or the period of warranty whichever
is the greater. After that you might have to fight it a bit.

(Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3045 The Sale and Supply of Goods to
Consumers Regulations 2002 48b (2)

"If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the
seller must -

(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a
reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the
buyer;

(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in
particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)."

This only applies if you acted as a "consumer", not if you ordered
the goods in a company or trading name.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 20:33:09 +0100, "Matt"
wrote:

und the initial carriage charge,

The items turned up faulty, so yes I think I should have been reimbursed the
carriage paid. This is how I thought the law stood.

I'm going to email them and point out their "mistake". Cheeky buggers. Took
over a month to pay me back as well.

Matt

Drop me a line with your story Matt, and I'll add it to my pages.


EBuyerdotcon "Made the wrong choice, didn't you?"
www.ebuyerdotcon.co.uk

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:49:33 +0100, "Andy"
wrote:


Not wishing to pay Devils advocate, but I don't think section B covers
return postage to the vendor. I think it simply covers an faulty item that
the vendor had to return it to their supplier - the vendor wouldn't be able
to levy additional charges on the customer for their costs in
repairing/returning the item to their supplier.

As far as the act is concerned there is no contract other than that
between the vendor and buyer - what the vendor has to do to affect
repair or replacement is irrelevant.

The section clearly states the seller responsibility :-

The "seller must -

(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a
reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the
buyer;

(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in
particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)."

The buyer is not even obliged to return the goods to the seller - he
can simply tell the seller to collect them at the sellers expense.
If the buyer has chosen to return the goods he is entitled to recover
the cost of postage to the vendor. "Bear all the necessary costs"
refers to the contract between the seller and buyer. The seller must
bear the costs of postage, of the time (labour) in repairing the
goods and the cost of any materials used. Any cost between the
seller and a third party is of no relevance.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 20:21:41 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:



The buyer is not even obliged to return the goods to the seller - he
can simply tell the seller to collect them at the sellers expense.

My apologies for following up to my own post but I should have said
this applies if the goods are rejected, In other cases :-

(from http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/saleandsupply.htm)

"15) Must a customer bring the defective article back to my shop?

Where he is entitled to reject the goods, he is not obliged to return
them unless he has agreed with you to do so. He is only obliged to
tell you that he refuses to accept the goods. When he has accepted
the goods it will depend on what is reasonable in that particular
case, but any direct and predictable expense can be claimed by the
customer, and this could include the cost of transport. In some
instances the customer may well get the defects remedied by someone
else and claim the cost from you as damages for breach of contract."

Note the DTI web page has not yet been amended to cover the Mar 31
regulations.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In the event of a rejection of goods, I'm sure you're correct. However, if
goods are being returned after a period of time has elapsed from the date of
purchase, I don't think you are. If the goods develop a fault, and have been
supplied with a return to base warranty, then my understanding is that the
cost of returning the item to the vendor is the buyers responsibility.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 20:21:41 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:



The buyer is not even obliged to return the goods to the seller - he
can simply tell the seller to collect them at the sellers expense.

My apologies for following up to my own post but I should have said
this applies if the goods are rejected, In other cases :-

(from http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/saleandsupply.htm)

"15) Must a customer bring the defective article back to my shop?

Where he is entitled to reject the goods, he is not obliged to return
them unless he has agreed with you to do so. He is only obliged to
tell you that he refuses to accept the goods. When he has accepted
the goods it will depend on what is reasonable in that particular
case, but any direct and predictable expense can be claimed by the
customer, and this could include the cost of transport. In some
instances the customer may well get the defects remedied by someone
else and claim the cost from you as damages for breach of contract."

Note the DTI web page has not yet been amended to cover the Mar 31
regulations.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:48:13 +0100, "Andy"
wrote:

In the event of a rejection of goods, I'm sure you're correct. However, if
goods are being returned after a period of time has elapsed from the date of
purchase, I don't think you are. If the goods develop a fault, and have been
supplied with a return to base warranty, then my understanding is that the
cost of returning the item to the vendor is the buyers responsibility.

You are incorrect, the only contract being considered in the Sale and
Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 is the contract between
the seller and buyer. It clearly states that the seller must "bear
any necessary costs incurred in doing so". I cannot see how you can
interpret this as only meaning postage from the vendor to someone
else who is not involved in the contract and not considered in the
regulations.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/