1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other Return of Monitor / OCUK

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by pete*, 20 Oct 2011.

  1. Blogins

    Blogins Panda have Guns

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    267
    If you decided to return the items within 7 days starting the day after you took delivery of the items then SCAN should have refunded the postage costs delivering the goods to you. This is under the Distance Selling Regulations, have a read of the thread linked in my signature.
     
  2. sp4nky

    sp4nky BF3: Aardfrith WoT: McGubbins

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    53
    There may be some confusion over this because forum members here don't pay for normal postage costs with Scan, assuming they have over 20 posts. If it was a Saturday delivery, though, there would be something to be refunded.
     
  3. Blogins

    Blogins Panda have Guns

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    267
    Yes it's often forgotten that delivery postage is part of the contract when buying goods online, through a catalogue or over the phone! So it's inextricably linked to the goods themselves when ordered and is just as qualified for a refund under the Distance Selling Regulations.
     
  4. BennieboyUK

    BennieboyUK CPC Folder of the Month Sep 2011

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    84
    I love having Blogins on this forum, man you help enough people!

    TOP DRAW
     
  5. Blogins

    Blogins Panda have Guns

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    267
    I just had enough hearing stories on these forums of users being done out of their cash. Be it an expensive item that was found to be incompatible that could have been returned for a full refund under the Distance Selling Regulations. Only to find them instead being sold on, be it on the marketplace or ebay for a loss! It especially irritates me that people don't contest goods of poor quality. It seems to be in our nature to accept the technology will fail in the space of a few short years when in fact we have the legislation that states the opposite.

    Fight for your rights Bit-Techers! :D
     
  6. izools

    izools New Member

    Joined:
    28 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    171
    Likes Received:
    9
    That, my dear fellow, is between you and your customer - your courier in this instance.

    You have purchased a service from your courier, they have failed to deliver the service in line with the contract between you and them, and this is between OCUK and (DPD?) to resolve. This process would be transparent to the end user - the customer who purchased the monitor.

    It is clear which obligations lie with which organisations and I'm afraid myself and the other posters on this forum are too astute to be fooled by your trying to wriggle out of your lawful obligations under the regulations you are legally obliged to comply with.

    Another excuse which I'm afriad wouldn't hold up under a S.75 dispute.

    It is your responsiblity as the ones soliciting a service from DPD to raise a complaint with them about their lack of professional service. It is up to you to argue with your DPD account manager to demand a refund for this and if you feel you are making losses due to your obligations under the Distance Selling Act combined with the incompetence of the drivers for your elected courier, it is your repsonsibility to elect an alternative courier to deliver to your end users.

    This line of excuses is very easy to see through and consistently non-compliant with the laws that govern you, thankfully most of your customers are astute and wise enough to pay by credit card and welcome the help provided to file S.75 claims - claims that you will not be able to win with erroneous arguments like this.

    EDIT: Oh, that's how long it's been since the last post... Never mind. Point still stands though :thumb:
     
    Last edited: 25 Jan 2012

Share This Page