Returned faulty items

[manxman]

Recently I had cause to return a damaged model to Hatton's which I did at my own expense.

A replacement was promptly sent but of course I am out of pocket.

Does anyone know my rights? Should my postage costs be refunded? Do I have to claim them from the retailer?

Any clues or experience will be appreciated. Thanks.

[RedgateModels]

Hattons are quite clear on their returns policy - send it back second class with proof of postage, they will refund that postage cost. If you chose to send it back by a different means they will not refund that cost.

 

How did you send it?

[Gwiwer]

I have once had to return a damaged item to Hattons as it was beyond reasonable repair when the box was opened. The damage looked, by its nature and extent, to have been caused in the factory packing process or possibly the result of a bulk shipping incident such as a dropped container and not from Hattons handling nor the shipping from them to me.

 

Their own website sets out their policy very clearly in that they will credit the cheapest available return shipping cost to your card account. They do not cover any other costs. I emailed first before returning the item since I live some 12000 miles away and the cheapest option is surface mail taking (despite what the mail services might suggest officially) from 3 - 6 months. I was keen to avoid a wait of that long and the possibility that the item might be out of stock by then. Hattons require to receive the defective or damaged item before sending a replacement.

 

In my case they agreed to cover the cheapest airmail shipping available due to the transit time of surface mail and duly did so upon arrival of the item in Liverpool. The replacement was then sent immediately at no further cost to myself.

 

My understanding of the UK distance selling legislation is that the contract is between vendor and purchaser and that the vendor shall sell goods which are fit for purpose. Failing that the vendor is the party responsible for making good the replacement or refund of the purchaser's cost but not necessarily of their shipping costs as the purchaser does not purchase the shipping - which is in any case a service and not a good - from the vendor. That much is at the vendor's discretion. Within the model railway fraternity we seem to be blessed with a high proportion of businesses who will with good grace cover the cost of return postage as Hattons do.

[spamcan61]

 

My understanding of the UK distance selling legislation is that the contract is between vendor and purchaser and that the vendor shall sell goods which are fit for purpose. Failing that the vendor is the party responsible for making good the replacement or refund of the purchaser's cost but not necessarily of their shipping costs as the purchaser does not purchase the shipping - which is in any case a service and not a good - from the vendor. That much is at the vendor's discretion. Within the model railway fraternity we seem to be blessed with a high proportion of businesses who will with good grace cover the cost of return postage as Hattons do.

 

That scenario only applies when the goods are being returned under DSR when the purchaser has changed their minds and doesn't want the goods any more. If the goods are faulty then they should be rejected under Sale of Goods act, the vendor is responsible for funding the return of the goods.

[Oldddudders]

Attitudes or "policies" do vary considerably. We all make mastikes but I had a most positive experience with Modelfair when the wrong item was sent - they put a correct replacement in the next post, and trusted me to return the original incorrect item, which of course I did. Big tick! On the other side of the Pennines, Rails sent the wrong items and insisted I return them before they would send the right ones. It was thus about a month between my card being charged and the correct items arriving, even though they were in stock. Less than impressed.

[Danemouth]

Recently had to return a Heljan turntable to Kernow Model Shop - sent it back first class..

 

Without prompting on my part they refunded the postage onto my credit card.

 

I call that excellent service.

 

Dave

[manxman]

Thanks, everybody. All sorted now.

[deltic56]

Attitudes or "policies" do vary considerably. We all make mastikes but I had a most positive experience with Modelfair when the wrong item was sent - they put a correct replacement in the next post, and trusted me to return the original incorrect item, which of course I did. Big tick! On the other side of the Pennines, Rails sent the wrong items and insisted I return them before they would send the right ones. It was thus about a month between my card being charged and the correct items arriving, even though they were in stock. Less than impressed.

I think the request to return the wrong item BEFORE sending the correct one is perfectly reasonable.

[Oldddudders]

I think the request to return the wrong item BEFORE sending the correct one is perfectly reasonable.

I do not. They had screwed up the order, not me. I had paid, and got nothing that I wanted for a month afterwards. I even had to ask if they were going to refund my return postage, to which they replied "of course". I have no idea what the return postage cost - the returning transaction was one of several in the post office that day, but the correct goods arrived with no hint of a refund as far as I can see. Basically, the customer is a nuisance.

[deltic56]

I do not. They had screwed up the order, not me. I had paid, and got nothing that I wanted for a month afterwards. I even had to ask if they were going to refund my return postage, to which they replied "of course". I have no idea what the return postage cost - the returning transaction was one of several in the post office that day, but the correct goods arrived with no hint of a refund as far as I can see. Basically, the customer is a nuisance.

Common sense applies . Who do you trust??? I would ask for the model/item to be returned and then send the correct item with an apology and a refund for the postage . That way nobody loses or gains, if you get my drift

[Gwiwer]

I can understand Ian's point but I see t both ways. An item you "wish to return" may in fact be perfectly good and there are no doubt a few people out there who would abuse the system for their own gain if the original item were not first sighted by the supplier before a replacement was sent.

 

It would be perfectly possible to claim the first was faulty, wait for the second to arrive and keep both (or on-sell one) for example.

[Oldddudders]

My peeve is not about faulty items - largely beyond the box-shifter's control as he cannot/must not open the box to inspect - but where the goods supplied do not match the online order, which is entirely his fault. I do not see the two in the same light.

[Andy Y]

but where the goods supplied do not match the online order,

 

My view is that if the retailer has fouled up (rather than a customer change of mind) they should not further inconvenience the customer and rectify it as soon as possible and maybe reach agreement to charge the customer if the surplus item is not returned (whilst covering trackable postage).

 

 

Who do you trust???

 

I see a record of defending model shops, particularly in the Yorkshire area as a pattern from previous postings whilst not stating if there is any interest, and I have to say I wouldn't be happy to trust a shop who can't despatch the correct item and then make the customer wait an undue amount of time.

 

 

 

 

 

[deltic56]

My view is that if the retailer has fouled up (rather than a customer change of mind) they should not further inconvenience the customer and rectify it as soon as possible and maybe reach agreement to charge the customer if the surplus item is not returned (whilst covering trackable postage).

 

 

 

 

I see a record of defending model shops, particularly in the Yorkshire area as a pattern from previous postings whilst not stating if there is any interest, and I have to say I wouldn't be happy to trust a shop who can't despatch the correct item and then make the customer wait an undue amount of time.

I was NOT specifically mentioning or defending any particular modelshop, just making a general observation. Also it is the way I have always worked in my business and it has worked perfectly ok for the past 26 years. I have never had any connection with the modelshop referred to in Yorskhire, in any case what has this got to do with the original post

[Sailsbury Hall]

very fair statement, Andy.

[Gwiwer]

Fair comment indeed Andy.

 

There are two related but different issues here. The OP specifically referred to damaged goods. The damage is unlikely to be the fault of nor within the control of the retailer and almost certainly would not be known to them - who would intentionally ship damaged goods after all?

 

Incorrect picking is a different matter but needs to be addressed nonetheless. We are all human and capable of making mistakes. We are equally all capable of asking for further information of there is anything unclear about the order and of offering apologies for and initiating corrective action when an error is brought to our attention.

 

I do see the retailer's side in expecting damaged goods to be returned first before a replacement is sent; in the case of a genuine error they might reasonably expect the same to apply to cover their behinds as much as anything whilst accepting that their mistake has inconvenienced their customer.

 

It would indeed be possible to operate a system where postage (and possibly other costs) were not credited until goods were received back though I wonder if to do so might not create more problems than it solves. I have only once received an incorrectly-picked item. On that occasion I received an emailed apology within hours and was invited to keep it at no cost and received the correct item very soon afterwards with a further apology written on the delivery note.

[Linners]

I have an unusual tale in as much that I received goods that I had never actually ordered! Having opened an unexpected package, my first thought was that my partner had ordered me a "surprise", although why she might have chosen a gaugemaster hand held controller was beyond me.

 

After talking to her, I realised that she had NOT ordered it, and as I hadn't either I contacted the merchant, based in the South West, and from whom I had ordered some small bits several months earlier. It transpired that the original purchaser and myself had the same (unusual) surname and that the merchant had made an error when dispatching the items, confusing the other person for me.

 

I offered to post on the goods, which he accepted, and he reimbursed me the cost and a bit more! All quite strange, but amicable. I never did get any "surprises" from my partner however!

 

Linners

[deltic56]

My peeve is not about faulty items - largely beyond the box-shifter's control as he cannot/must not open the box to inspect - but where the goods supplied do not match the online order, which is entirely his fault. I do not see the two in the same light.

 

Mistakes happen, and common sense SHOULD apply as to returns. A quick PHONE call explaining the situation, agree to return said wrong goods, wait for correct goods to arrive with apology and refunded return postage and hey presto all solved. As one of the adverts says Simples really.

[Andy Y]

A quick PHONE call explaining the situation, agree to return said wrong goods, wait for correct goods to arrive with apology and refunded return postage and hey presto all solved. As one of the adverts says Simples really.

 

That's the whole point; that isn't what happened in the case cited below and the customer was made to wait hence my earlier comments. You made it sound as though people were wrong to hold the expectations they may have but make a simplified generalisation there whilst rolling your eyes.

 

 

Rails sent the wrong items and insisted I return them before they would send the right ones. It was thus about a month between my card being charged and the correct items arriving, even though they were in stock. Less than impressed.

 

 

 

[deltic56]

That's the whole point; that isn't what happened in the case cited below and the customer was made to wait hence my earlier comments. You made it sound as though people were wrong to hold the expectations they may have but make a simplified generalisation there whilst rolling your eyes.

 

As I say mistakes happen. Nothing wrong in asking for goods to be returned BEFORE other goods being sent out.

[Andy Y]

Nothing wrong in asking for goods to be returned BEFORE other goods being sent out.

 

I'm not going to carry on wasting my breath (and watching you roll your eyeballs) then as our opinions are opposed in a case where the retailer is at fault. I would challenge you though to clarify if you have an interest as a retailer and if so, whom.

 

 

 

[deltic56]

Nothing wrong with a differing opinion is there??. I am just trying to say that common sense should prevail regardless on which business.

[Andy Y]

Nothing wrong with a differing opinion is there??.

 

Not at all but I am very wary when there's been an underlying mistrust of customers even though the cited case is the retailer's fault. And I'm wary when the last question was unanswered.

 

 

 

[deltic56]

No retail connection what so ever as if it matters