Peter Tyson & Distance Selling Regs...nice one guys!
I was scanning through Ebay, as you do, and came across a pair of Linn Komponent 110 floorstanders, at a reduced Buy It Now price of £449 with Peter Tyson of Carlisle. Great price, no idea about the speaker, but they look like they're designed with home cinema in mind and in a contemporary slim-styled unit, twin drivers too. No idea about sound quality either but think these typically go for around the £900 mark. Anyway, reading down the page, you come to the returns policy. Thanks to Distance Selling Regs, you can return your purchase for any reason you like including "I've changed my mind" within 7 days after the day of receipt of the goods. You can also take them out the box and try them out, this being part of the legislation and was designed to encourage consumers to benefit from the benefits of buying online, benefit business by growing trade via online means and encourage peace of mind. Further, it also covers mail order, and Ebay Buy It Now purchases as well. What retailers specifically can not do, or at least, can't get away with, is to 'modify' the rules and regs to suit their aims and goals. In Peter Tyson's case, it says this - and this is a direct quote from the item listing (number: 270607096735):- [i]Current legislation gives you the right to cancel the sale from up to 7 working days from receipt of the goods, without penalty and without giving a reason. [b]The following details would have to be complied with[/b]: 1. Cancellation to be in writing. [b]2. The goods must not have been unpacked or used.[/b] 3. The goods must not be damaged or soiled in any way. 4. Goods must be in their original packaging. 5. The cost of returning the goods would be at your expense. 6. The goods must arrive back undamaged. Please consider insuring the goods before despatch. [b]7. A refund would be given only when we have received the goods and the above points (1 - 4 ) have been complied with.[/b] 8. Special orders or customised items can not be returned. 9. Variations to these conditions may apply - subject to mutual agreement. We don't operate a re-stocking system, but in the event when after using the goods you find them totally unsuitable, we may consider re-stocking. Contact us if this occurs. Goods must have a returns authorisation number before we can take receipt.[/i] I dropped Tyson's a note on the back of this and received a reply saying that the legislation does give me the right to tryout the goods, but they have to be returned in perfect condition, undamaged and unsoiled. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that the only way to do this if for the buyer not to try the kit. It does mean the onus is on the buyer to take due care and consideration when the purchase is in their possession, not unreasonably. The two are not interchangeable. Which suggest to me at least that Tysons are aware of the legislation and what it's about but have concocted this list, of which points 2 and 7 are well out of order, to presumably minimise opened box returns. I often look over the Superfi site and am unfailingly impressed how upfront and straight up they are with their returns policy. There's no grey areas and the buyer knows exactly where they stand. Tysons look like a good retailer, but this fudge shows them up in a poor light. Their online site lists terms and conditions but buries the right to return information in here, but makes no reference using this phrase - in fact "Returns" don't appear at all, yet it's likely that this is one of the things people will look for. Why make it so difficult? I suspect it wouldn't take too much for Tysons to change their policy and reword and better still remove the points in question. Ideally, tidy up the whole "How to Buy", "Terms", "Service Policy" and "Help & FAQ" sections which are currently not a model of clarity for buyers.
gel:Good call
+ 1 
I completely agree with you. It simply means that they're aware of the law, but what they've written is unlawful.
That's why I started this thread for members to be aware of their rights: http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/462540.aspx
Pehaps a call to Trading Standards may get them to re-word it.
I have emailed them about it, let's see if they change their wordings.
good work rs and bb
Absolutely right, the idea is to encourage online shopping for the benefit of retailer and consumer but it seems some retailers want their cake and eat it so well spotted
not really sure what your point is it like you're naming and shaming them - they have made a slight error in the description and when you contacted them they confirmed you are correct so hopefully they will change them but to me the truth is in how they conduct themselves and on that level peter tysons are fantastic and the place i always call first!.
Having dealt with them on many many occasions and spent prob about £15k with them over the years i have never had an issue with their service. When I had a problem with an item that went faulty (they collected, tested and repalced unit in less than a week) I also bought an item from them that they didn't stock and was special order to me and when it arrived it wasn't up to standard not their fault but collected and refunded immediately. They also went out of there way to order me two hi fi cabinets that they didn't stock but was with a manufacturer that traded with.
Check a few of my threads as I have mentioned them many times and recommended them to numerous forum members
the other point i would make as someone who did work in retail sales like 15 years ago is that you are obviously a careful persons many arn't and many are dishonest you should have seen some of the stuff we got back it looked like ppl had just ripped open packing and bounced the item around
also the one thing that really bugs me is plastic sealed packaging that you physically have to cut open with scissors and knives and destroy to get to the product is just stupid
also on a side note i had wordswith superfi as bought a sony dvd recorded received it set it up then found it £100 cheaper online so called them and asked them to price match and they said no so i stated dsr and wanted to return it as only had it 1 day and they told me as i had opened and used it i couldn't after a few conversation they agreed - i had to return at my cost and then wait for the refund
Peter Tyson is a respected retailer, but it's upto these reputable retailers to take a lead in educating consumers. Peter Tyson is not alone here, even play.com has similar conditions.
This cannot be put in terms & conditions as an oversight. I had emailed play.com a couple of weeks ago, pointing this out. If they don't reword their terms soon, I'll report it to Trading Standards.
i am also pretty sure under distant selling regulations if an item arrives faulty and you reject it accorrdance with the law that it states a refund should be immedaitely given even though you still have the goods and not have to wait for them to be returned and then refunded but you try and find any retailer that does that as in all the years i've been shopping never had it
Refunds
The retailer must refund the full amount including the delivery
costs as soon as possible after the consumer cancels, and in
any case within 30 days at the latest. You cannot insist on the
goods being received by you before you make a refund.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft913.pdf - this is the best artical ever as it's actually written by the office of fair trading to tell businesses what they legal have to comply with or as i look at it, it gives me a list of things they usually don't do which you can then challenge them on!
ones from memory are refunds as stated above - also i'm pretty sure it says somewhere you don't have to return in original packaging but it is your responsability to ensure they are packaged safely for collection - most companies don't tell you that
Can I insist that consumers who cancel an order within the
cancellation period return the goods as new or in their
original packaging?
3.58 No. Consumers are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods
while in their possession as discussed in paragraph 3.44. The DSRs
allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would
in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the
goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable
care of the goods. In these circumstances you cannot insist that
consumers return the goods as new or in their original packaging.
You may ask consumers to return goods with the original packaging,
but you cannot insist on this. In the case of goods such as earrings
that have hygiene seals, you may require consumers to exercise
reasonable care by not removing the seals when examining them.
so you could argue point 4 is also in breach but then most good ppl would return in original packaging and in good condition. Point 7 is also not right re refunds not taking into account the fact of points 1-4
but i also bet there will be a law stating companies need to be protected from ppl receiving goods, cancelling then not returning them which is prob ties into something else somewhere the law is very complex and many laws cross over each other which is why its so hard to keep up and know which bit to look for - eu law also further complicates this issue
also read up about section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 you used to be able to just ring your credit card company and demand a refund and they would chase it but because a lot of ppl were doing this fradulantly you now have to jump through lots of hoops but still useful to know so always by on CCards!
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf - sorry the above link is the short version this is the full one with answered questions for the retailers
play.com as its based in jersey the laws are different and not as strict as ours - i think its a grey area, luckily never had to argue with them - try to make by big purchases elsewhere for this very reason
there is also a vat/tax implication for being based in jersey which is why play.com is sometimes cheapers - also check out tesco entertainment - i think they were kicked out of jersey and then gone back because of the above - the government is trying to tighten this up - as tesco is registered in the uk thats why they relaunched as tesco entertainment based in guernsey from memory was a news artical on it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/13/tesco-revives-jersey-vat-avoidance
matengawhat:
also the one thing that really bugs me is plastic sealed packaging that you physically have to cut open with scissors and knives and destroy to get to the product is just stupid
Anyone would think they are trying to discourage returns
Magentawhat - you're mistaking the issue here. This is nothing to do with faulty goods, for which the consumer is fully protected. This is to do with the DSRs which allow a customer to return goods following a mail order or online purchase within 7 days after the day of receipt. This topic's come up several times in the last couple of years on here and it's worth mentioning as a result. This law is there to protect the consumer as well as the retailer - the items must be returned in the condition they were sent out, but that doesn't mean the customer isn't allowed to take the goods out to try them. Completely different scenario to the faulty goods situation entirely and companies should be aware of this.
I'm sure you have done a lot of business with Tyson's, to that end, I'd have thought you'd want the playing field to be level for everyone, not just the big spenders with the company.
Like I said, I think they're a good retailer by the looks of things, but the site is confusing in terms of layout as aforementioned and the stated policy is flat wrong in places.
As to the goods being returned in any old condition, in those circumstances, no refund is payable. the conditions are quite clear about this.
didn't miss the issue at all thats why the info quoted was all regarding dsr bot just faulty goods - my example with tysons wasn't just over faulty goods but also items returned due to not liking the quality - also the issue i mentioned with superfi was nothing to with faulty goods but returning something within 7 days that i didn't want as could buy cheaper else where!
the point i was making was that what's written in the details at the end of that ebay item is not how they do business not sure where the laws lies with saying one thing but then acting within the law when needed - same as when you contacted them and they told you that you were correct. I'm sure they treat all their customers well - i obviously didn't spend that all in one go but over many years and as said can't fault it.
businesses sometimes print things that aren't factually correct prob to put ppl off taking advantage - for example would it be ok to order 3 pairs of speakers just so you can try them all out in your own home and send back the ones you don't like, this is perfectly legal but prob still costs the retailer. Shipping is fairly cheap these days but is that fair on the retailer or on the person that finally ends up with what you returned? Lots of items are returned to manufacturers from stores where they are repackaged then sent out again! this would be wrong
and as said not all companies know the law but trading standards are very well versed and are very helpful when you need them or want to report someone but the documents i posted answer most questions you could ever need
ppl don't know their rights which is why retailers i think sometimes offer solutions that favour them hoping you accept what they say but always be prepaired to do your research and fight your corner
- Login to post comments
Good call
Panasonic 50GT50, Pioneer Bdp-lx71, Pioneer Vsx-lx70, B&W FPM Series & B&W PV1.