Dare say you can still get a credit card. The trick is to spend within your means and pay it off immediately to avoid fees. I've done this since my student days living off a grant but spending on credit. Almost to the extent I no longer use physical money! Just need to use the plastic sensibly.
I've been on disability benefits for 20 years, and I have a Barclaycard with a £150 limit. I use it for almost all purchases, and pay it off in full twice a month, usually enough to put me in the black.
An update. I got a phone call from the retailers representative today. There was some concern about the accuracy of my previous posts but I think after a lengthy discussion about it all we came to a mutually acceptable conclusion. In the light of a degree of uncertainty around the issues we agreed not to pursue the issue of the return postage. I would say I did appreciate that the retailer took the time to call me in person and whilst clearly we still have a few issues of difference between us broadly an amicable solution has been found. So whilst its not been an ideal purchasing experience for me it is fair to say that the retailer has made some effort to deal with my concerns and that is to be commended.
Great info much appreciated will booknark for future reference that sad part with SOGA you have to battle mostly to get your point accross ... I had an occassion years ago where i bought a tv which was so defective it nearly killed me (went on fire) ...the tv not me but nearly Had to fight with Comet!! ...Shoulda seen the look on the spotty youths face when i planted a rather crispy half of a 25" nicam stereo panasonic tv on his counter lol.... Got it resolved as the manager can up and couldnt dispute it as serial number was still on the unburnt part of the label! RESULT!
Not sure if this has been dismissed already or not- While looking into the consumer contracts regulations, which if I'm correct replaced DSR, I came across the known So, we know this. AFAIK generally you get charged a fee for returning an open box item because its value has been diminished. Reading slightly further on So what do we think? Are my detective skill failing me, or does that seem like we have an avenue to not be charged? You can't test if product functions without opening and using it.
PC hardware needs to be installed and tested to prove it functions. So point 34.-(9) does actually backup the consumer in this instance.
Glad to see someone else agrees. Surprising that shops try to add a handling/restocking/whatever fee when you send stuff back though I can only assume they are trying their luck essentially.
Sorry to bump an old thread but i think its worth people seeing the following changes have come in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34414218
Not really, unfortunately. The allowed level of handling by the consumer is defined later in the act. Quote (12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop. For example fitting and testing a graphics card goes beyond what you could do in a shop. It may be possible to reject (for example) an underperforming or excessively noisy card under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Good spot, I didn't see that! How do display items fit into that? My aim wasn't to be able to plug the hardware in and see it work with the ability to return it. but to do with the ability to open an item and look at it and still be able to return without being charged the 25% value that iirc some places are doing so. The function part just seemed to be able to cover that - obviously not.
The value would not be diminished by 25% simply by opening the box. That is excessive and should be challenged. It is going the backdoor route to the old restocking fee which was outlawed. One Trading Standards bit of guidance about this area of the new regs is: A consumer returns a shirt that comes in a presentation box, which he had opened and removed all the pins and packaging to try it on. It is reasonable to expect a consumer to remove packaging to try on or examine an item, so you should make no deduction for this B consumer returns a shirt, which you can see has clearly been worn. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value C consumer returns flat pack furniture, which he has clearly attempted to assemble by opening packs of screws and trying to put parts together. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value Any company exhibiting that sort of anti-consumer behaviour should be blasted on the social media networks and shamed into stopping.
Surely the value of the item that has been opened would be decided by the retailer? The examples of a shirt make sense in places where you are allowed to try on said shirts in store, but as you said yourself, the fitting and testing of, for example, a GPU would be beyond what you could do in a shop and this would also apply to them allowing you to open a box to have a look I'd imagine. The shop may have on display GPUs to showcase part of a whole product i.e. in a PC. Do you know the name of said law and where it was outlawed? Or is in in the CCR? I'm interested
The terms of the DSR (and, currently, the CCR) relating to return of unwanted goods within the statutory period effectively barred suppliers from making any charges. As long as goods are returned within the current 14 day period in good condition the supplier must refund the full cost and, if applicable, the basic outgoing postage charge, to the customer. It would be possible for a supplier to offer to accept returns outside the statutory 14 day period and then charge a restocking fee but afaik would have to make it clear in T&Cs. There is an implementation document for businesses here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf Section D para 14 makes it pretty clear that removing packaging is allowed.
