High volume xxx UK seller - this all legal?

[Hairyloon]

The STB was dispatched back to the company, using their pre-paid postage, as they asked me to do via a trackable email on xxxx system, a few days after I first purchased the STB.

Have you any proof of posting?

[George R]

Unfortunately not. Not that xxxx asked for proof of handing over the parcel to Royal Mail. During the dispute xxxx were only interesting in tracking details. ie. proof that the seller received the goods.

To give some more background. I posted on xxxx's forum highlighting the loophole. xxxx deleted it on the grounds that it encouraged others to break their TOS. xxxx's disputes team: 'Seller is not breaking TOS.' xxxx's community team: 'The loophole clearly breaks TOS'. As a last throw of the dice I sent a long email to xxxx asking them to apologise for the way we were treated and asking them to look into the loophole. They claim to respond within 48 hours. That was over 2 weeks ago.

[lemontree]

In law ... Just notify the supplier that you are rejecting the goods and can they please arrange to refund and, if they wish, collect.

and similar statements.
All very well in theory but for low value goods (i.e. not worth suing over) you have no power over the retailer. They simply will not refund until the goods are returned AND usually at your expense. They hold your money which actually puts them in charge.
I have about three things ongoing on xxx at the moment that are 'not as described'. You and I know that the seller must in law pay for the return, or simply refund. You know what these sellers write to me? When I tell them my legal rights they say to me "I know the law and I do not have to pay any postage costs". Thoughts? ...

[dls]

You ask as to whether certain actions may be 'illegal'. Illegality asks as to criminality. No. A policy of such behaviour may become unlawful, with powers of intervention.

Unfortunately such companies tend to operate from outside the UK.

[Hairyloon]

All very well in theory but for low value goods (i.e. not worth suing over) you have no power over the retailer.

If they're not worth suing over then they're not worth worrying too much about.
Ok, that is a lie, there is a bit of a gap, but you should get your costs, so most of the gap is caused by the effort involved, and they don't know how bloody minded you are or not.
Send them a letter before action saying you'll go to court and that they'll end up paying costs.

When I tell them my legal rights they say to me "I know the law and I do not have to pay any postage costs". Thoughts? ...

Quote chapter and verse, and point them at the Distance Selling Regulations... I'm fairly sure that xXxx have them up on their website somewhere.

[faithless]

In law ... Just notify the supplier that you are rejecting the goods and can they please arrange to refund and, if they wish, collect.

and similar statements.
All very well in theory but for low value goods (i.e. not worth suing over) you have no power over the retailer. They simply will not refund until the goods are returned AND usually at your expense. They hold your money which actually puts them in charge.
I have about three things ongoing on xxx at the moment that are 'not as described'. You and I know that the seller must in law pay for the return, or simply refund. You know what these sellers write to me? When I tell them my legal rights they say to me "I know the law and I do not have to pay any postage costs". Thoughts? ...

Go to the government website, find the advisory pages on rights conferred by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, copy the content, email the copy together with the URL to the seller, and explain that you will issue proceedings on the Small Claims Track (he cannot recover legal costs) in the Money Claim Online centre (which is cheaper) and will thereby obtain judgment against him¹ for breaching the contract as provided for in the CP(DS)R plus your costs of issuing the Claim and there will then be an unsatisfied County Court Judgment registered against him if he doesn't cough up within 14 days.

Of course if you didn't correctly implement the CP(DS)R rights, then you have to rely on Sale of Goods Act 1979.

There are problems, as dls says, with retailers outside the UK. Such contracts are almost certainly caught by UK consumer law - such as SOGA and DSR - but how are you going to realistically and at an economic cost enforce against a company in Panama, or Luxembourg?

¹ Because he cannot defend the claim by saying 'I demand the buyer must return the item to me at his own expense', and he has no other defence.

[lemontree]

Thanks for your thoughts.
The companies involved on xx are uk companies. Whatever consumer law you quote at them they just say I know my rights or I'm not interested in arguing or then I'll be out of pocket and I don't get reimbursed by Royal Mail etc. Of course very frustrating. They appear not to listen to logic or quoted law, and why should they? no incentive to as they have the hold over your money and the consequence of withholding it is negligible.
Given that the companies are willing to refund cost of the item itself, mitigating the major cost, I don't think Judge would be too impressed spending £25+ and taking half a day of work to recover £5-10.

Xxxx and yyyy are part of the problem - under the terms of their dispute resolution which I have looked at carefully the buyer must always bear the costs of returning goods even if they're faulty, misdescribed or whatever.

[Hairyloon]

I'll be out of pocket and I don't get reimbursed by Royal Mail[/i]

Then they should not sell crap.

Given that the companies are willing to refund cost of the item itself, mitigating the major cost, I don't think Judge would be too impressed spending £25+ and taking half a day of work to recover £5-10.

It should not take half a day... unless you get a respondent like mine.

[mowerman]

Talk to trading standards .

Sadly no longer possible for consumers. Even Consumer Direct has been scrapped.
All consumer enquiries now have to be directed to the CAB who simply look up OFT guidelines using their own interpretation - often incorrectly.
At best, albeit rare, CAB pass the issue to TS who with sufficient complaints will approach the seller as to their trading practices without addressing any individual complaint.

[lemontree]

I concur with mowerman, they need to aggregate sufficient complaints