'Next' breaks refund rules for online deliveries

[completerookie]

I see the big retailer 'Next' is in trouble by not refunding delivery charges for any returns

A BBC investigation has found that Next has been breaking consumer law.

It has been failing to refund delivery charges applied to goods bought online, but then returned.

The BBC has also discovered that staff at other mail order companies are giving out the wrong information about their refund policies.

Under the Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs), a customer returning goods within seven days is entitled to a full refund and the initial delivery charge.

These legally binding rules were introduced in 2000 to protect customers who, unlike high street shoppers, are unable to inspect goods before they buy them.

The law does not cover the cost of returning the unwanted items.

But Next has been breaching the regulations by billing customers for delivery costs - even if goods are returned within seven days.

When the BBC questioned Next, it said it would change its policy from the start of August

they are not the only one, Debenhams, Littlewoods and others

Is everoyne else obeying the DSR rules??

[Duncan Rounding]

They broke the rules but...

Next, however don't charge for returns which can be in the customers' favour. The customer pays the outgoing shipping even if all goods are returned but gets free return postage for any unwanted items.

By the rules Next only has to refund the outgoing postage if all the goods are returned and doesn't have to pay for the return of the unwanted items unless faulty.

They pay for the returns, one - because it's good for business in the clothing industry, and two - because it would be almost impossible to get the goods back otherwise.

I think it was, once again, one-sided reporting from the BBC ganging up against the merchants. Yes, they broke the DSR rules, but they (merchants) were made out to be the bad boys again.

[saucysal]

The Law is an Ass

This is a prime case of the law being an ass. If a high percentage of customers returned goods and demanded a full refund, including the initial carriage charge, a firm could eventually go out of business as this is a loss-making transaction. If the firm is a small one, it would not take a lot of such returns to put them out of business. A business with small profit margins on its goods would feel it more. They would have to put up their charges, either in the prices of the goods or in the carriage, to recoup these losses, so everybody loses.

It is perfectly reasonable to refund all carriage costs, the initial and return, if the goods are faulty, incorrect or not as described. But for perfect and correct goods it is quite different. All websites have pictures and descriptions.

Sarah

[Duncan Rounding]

What struck me most about this was the manner in which it was reported by the BBC.

[completerookie]

don't disagree with either of the last two entries.
we get in items in excess of £2k (wholesale) for customers, they "just want to look", they may have to spend £20 returning a big box back to us (big deal) , but then we are expected to totally refund all the money (inc postage) despite the fact that we had to get them in 'special' from holland, ship them to the customer, and then, if returned, have em lying around for a while, hoping someone esle wants the same spec.
Yup, I know I used the word 'special' and DSR may not cover 'specials, but in fact they are just 'run of the mill' expensive items

pain in the bum, and they have us over a barrel
DSR isn't about fairness, its about telling the customer that they are never wrong! (a bit like ebay not letting the seller say that the buyer is a scam artist)

rant over !

[Mike Hughes]

I have no problem with the DSRs.

They give customers confidence that they can order without seeing the goods in advance and to me that's a good thing. The DSRs also protect me when I buy stuff online.

I know different market segments will behave differently but I probably only see 1-2 returns per 1,000 orders for 'not really what I wanted' reasons. I'm sure it's very different for people in the clothes business like NEXT where they get returned items that have clearly been worn or Kevin's where he has to order in expensive / special items.

NEXT were breaking the rules and initially tried to defend themsleves on the 'interpretation' of the laws. They changed their minds pretty quickly though once they realised they were wrong. As Duncan says though, they did (still so?) offer a free return service so the customer wasn't really disadvantaged.

Mike

[completerookie]

just in the last couple of weeks, we ordered an expensive item (2k+ wholesale) - the one I talked of in the previous post.
the customer said "need it urgent", "be there on friday, if its not there by 1pm, let me know, I'll chase it so that we don't miss the deadline"
he interpreted this as "if its not here by 1pm, all bets are off"
Friday traffic in london, delivery is made at 15:05 and he promptly refuses delivery - "you broke your contract, you never got it here in time !"

net result, "he's in the right", "he's done nothing wrong", and "I'm 100% at fault" despite doing everything we can to get the thing there on time, from holland.

Sometimes, DSR's are so heavily biased, "they arn't worth the paper they're written on"
and yup, I buy on line, I want reasonable DSR's but not at "all costs"

[saucysal]

Press Biased

Yes, I agree that the reporting of Next and others by the press has the tone of Next ripping off its customers. The press, including programmes like Watchdog, are always in favour of the consumer against the business. This gets me very annoyed, as many businesses give excellent service and try their hardest to please customers, sometimes going to great lengths - they want more orders, after all. The DSR, in my opinion, has gone over-the-top. It is reasonable for a business to refund for perfect goods returned quickly, but not reasonable to refund for the outward carriage also, if the goods are as described. If a firm chooses to refund the carriage too that is up to them, but it should not be a legal requirement.

In our case all this is irrelevant from a legal point of view, as we are exempt on two counts - we are selling food delivered and the products all have date limitations. However, customers expect us to do the same as non-exempt businesses, even though we make the situation very clear on our website, and even give them a link to the DSR to read it.

In the past more protection for consumers was necessary; this has now been corrected, but over-corrected. We could do now with a similar law to protect the seller.

Sarah

[jont]

not reasonable to refund for the outward carriage also, if the goods are as described.

If the customer had to drive or catch a bus to the store rather than having it delivered they would not get a refund. Or for parking. Many will not try on clothing at the store but prefer to take it home in privacy and try it on there.

The DSR regs are based on the assumption that all on-line traders are out to steal money from customer. These will surely change now online purchasing is sitting alongside high street purchasing