Brief cases: fighting a £950 cancellation fee

That’s OK, David, but many people do not wish to live their lives through the medium of Amazon’s on-line catalogue. I must admit, however, that buying a dining set without seeing it is taking a chance and it was just luck that meant the supplier could only deduct the delivery charge from the refund. I agree with DieselTaylor that a 30% deduction to cover putative value loss would have been excessive – I would say 10% is the most that would be fair and reasonable if the goods are returned immediately in pristine condition.

The monthly Which? Magazine is becoming so full of interesting articles and reports these days that I hardly get time to read it all. I had not even opened the 84-page ram-packed September issue to see the Brief Cases advice on distance-selling returns so I thought I had better check whether there was indeed a flow-chart before commenting. Unfortunately, there is not, so I think that is a very good idea. It would be a very useful service to subscribers to send out with the magazine every so often a handy card containing nuggets of knowledge in a nutshell, especially on our legal rights. Diagrammatic presentation should be used wherever possible. I know it’s all there on-line but finding it can sometimes take too long whereas a set of cards could easily be consulted and relevant ones could be taken into shops.

Lawyers rarely say anything with absolutes. And that’s a problem for shoppers needing unequivocal advice.

Lawyers may prefer no to give uneqivocal advice however we are talking about a recent single Act and I think there is no wriggle room.

On the face of it the request for £950 comes into the impossible to enforce as there is no legal basis as all they did was take delivery and decide after the modest handling allowed that it was too heavy. The only feasible legal alternative for the company wanting the amount is it was a bespoke build . Taking into account when it was ordered and when it was delivered there is a whiff of special order.

I think part of the problem is that Which? Legal is AFAIK not licensed to practice and therefore I assume is not in a position to answer. Alternatively it never obtained the full details of the case. Thirdly perhaps it wanted a great scare-mongering headline. Or fourthly Branston’s were trying it on but Which do not want to say that.

I think the whole idea of buying certain goods online, especially large items such as furniture, and chairs in particular, where the Goldilocks Principle applies is not recommended (see en.wikipedia.org – Goldilocks Principle), as DT and Ian have indicated above and this concept, (if not already) should be added as a legally binding statute when contemplating buying such articles.

The same principle would also apply to beds, mattresses and sofas when realistically, given the enormous choice on offer in the current retail marketplace, the chances of pleasing even the less discriminate of buyers is highly unlikely.

Personally I wouldn’t risk or welcome all the potential inconvenience and hassle experienced by Mr & Mrs Jones by opting to shop online for a whole dining set, so would hesitate to go down that route, but I am pleased Which? Legal Services were successful in helping them to reclaim their £2,556 refund.

We have to accept that the costs to retailers of remedying customers’ injudicious distance purchases will impact on prices eventually.

While I have already said that I wouldn’t buy such an important and expensive item as a full dining set of table and chairs on-line, if I were a retailer I wouldn’t sell such a thing on-line either – unless the customer confirmed they had seen it in a store. I wonder how many customers would have put up with the dining set rather than seek to return it because the chairs were too heavy; if such a factor was so critical it begs the question why enquiries were not made before placing the order.

It is unfortunate for Mr & Mrs Jones to now have their furniture purchasing subjected to detailed examination in public but I assume Which? obtained their permission to publishing the legal team’s article in the September 2016 Which? Magazine and subsequently floating it into the jaws of Which? Conversation.

I have checked Branston Gardens Reading website and their legal T&C’s which come under ‘directoutdoorliving.co.uk.’ They are however still quoting a “7 day statutory rights period or within our 30 day returns policy” – subject also of course to their own conditions of sale.

Good sleuthing – possibly. The site you mention is that of Connection Flooring Ltd which has no Directors that I can see of the Branstons company.

However the terms and conditions of the site you highlight appear to be in breach of the Consumer Contracts regulations. They also have a clause regarding packing material which looks wrong. : )

It used to cost me a fortune when I had to pay Co House a pound for every search I did. Thank goodness the Beta is free , if not totally reliable. A few months ago I found that some foreign related companies had not been added despite being registered and trading. It was to do with a company taking around 80% of a charities income in mailing, servicing and website costs. A figure not far off £0.5m

Wise words.

BTW my mother-in-law claimed lanolin affected her adversely pointing the finger at her leather chair.

My personal view is that, when considering any purchase, one must take into account any sensitivities or intolerances that could affect one’s condition adversely. The greater the expenditure the greater the need to research and examine the product and check its properties and specification. If a cold surface would be uncomfortable then that becomes a critical factor in the purchase and could be made the essence of the contract. Retailers have to accept the return of goods within the legally stated return period under the CRA but beyond that I would not expect a retailer to accept the return of a product if it was in all respects compliant with its description and fit for purpose except in regard to a criterion that the buyer had not explained to the seller.

That’s interesting. I would not have thought much skin came into contact with the body of a chair while wearing normal clothing. My mother-in-law was more heavily upholstered than the furniture and felt nothing.

Sorry if this is lengthy and repeats what might have been said, but the Consumer Rights Act (BIS guidance for business) says:

“10. 14 day right to cancel for goods bought at a distance or off-premises
If you sell goods to a consumer at a distance or off-premises (see above for further information on what distance and off-premises contracts are) then the consumer has a 14 calendar day period in which they may change their mind and cancel the contract (unless an exemption applies – see below) 6.
Note that this right for the consumer to return goods within 14 days is different and separate to their rights if the goods do not meet the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act. The consumer may use this 14 day cooling off period to cancel without giving a reason, if goods were bought off-premises or at a distance.
The 14 day period starts the day after the consumer, or someone selected by the consumer, receives the goods. Where different goods within an order are delivered at different times the cancellation period will run from the day after delivery of the last item. If the contract is for regular deliveries of goods during a defined period (more than a day), the period will run from the day after delivery of the first item.
Once the consumer has notified you that they wish to cancel the contract, they must return the goods to you without delay and within 14 days after that notification, unless you have offered to collect them or the contract was off-premises and the goods were delivered to the consumer’s home and could not normally be returned by post due to their nature.
You should refund all monies received. This includes the outbound delivery cost, unless the consumer chose to have the goods delivered by more expensive means than the cheapest standard delivery option offered. If so, you do not have to refund the full outbound delivery cost, but only the cost of the standard delivery option which the consumer could have chosen. You must repay the consumer without undue delay, and no later than 14 days starting the day after you receive the goods back. If the consumer provides proof of return before you receive the goods back, you should refund without undue delay and no later than 14 days starting the day after you receive that proof.
You do not have to pay the cost of returning the goods to you, provided you told the consumer before the contract was made that they would be liable for such costs.
You have a right to deduct monies from refunds where goods show signs of use or unreasonable handling leading to diminished value. The consumer should be able to inspect the goods in the same way that they might in a shop, so you should not deduct money for checks necessary to see that the goods are as described. But you can deduct for damage or wear and tear beyond this, for example where the item has not just been checked but used.”

There are exemptions where you cannot reject in this way , including “Bespoke and customised goods”.

Thank for posting that, Malcolm. This information, distilled into a flow chart, is exactly what Which? ought to be providing. Having perused it it’s easy to see where shops fall down. They refer to ‘returning items’ frequently, but they often fail to make it clear that there are at least two totally different sets of regulations for returning: the distance selling regulations, which have been described very clearly, above, and the The Consumer Rights Act. Ideally, a flowchart incorporating both would be an invaluable tool for the consumer.

Agreed Ian, and thanks Malcolm for reminding us of the guidance to traders. It’s not difficult really but I think there is a reluctance in some quarters to accept that consumers have these rights and that, for distance-selling, they are extensive and compulsory. They therefore make little attempt to draw consumers’ attention to them or enable them to exercise them properly.

We have had a nice long Conversation asking contributors to let Which? know which organisations are still quoting premium rate phone numbers for customer service. That has now trickled to a virtual standstill. Perhaps now it’s time for a new one inviting us to inform on those companies that are clearly in denial of consumers’ rights with distance selling or are just being coy about them.

There is a comprehensive flow chart in the following document; it covers the basic rights but not distance selling. However most aspects of the CRA seems to be covered, particularly by numerous examples to illustrate features. One important topic, in my view, seems to be avoided – durability. And they use the term “fault” where the act does not; the Act refers to failure to meet contract requirements. The document, like the previous “Sale of Goods Act explained” is aimed at traders and businesses and so should be very useful for consumers to use!

Department for Business innovation and Skills. Consumer Rights Act. guidance for Business. September 2015.
https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/files/The%20sale%20and%20supply%20of%20goods_ALL_BIS_GOODS_GUIDANCE_SEP15.pdf

Lauren – I have posted my suggestion in the Your Ideas place [not an easy thing to find]. I must say it seems like a suggestions graveyard so I don’t have much hope of a Conversation emerging. You say my suggestion is “interesting” and “worth exploring” so why isn’t Which? taking it forward anyway? I don’t get the impression that many people are voting for or against any of the hundreds of ideas put forward so they just lie there.

By the way, I couldn’t get the “Read more +” button on any of the entries to do anything other than take me right back to the beginning; I assumed it would provide more content on the issue submitted. If it’s just a “Go back to the start” button, why not call it that? Also I came across posts there that are clearly comments for inclusion in the relevant Conversation; in one case [12 July 2016] the contributor wanted help on a very difficult problem with a supermarket. I can understand how people can easily but mistakenly post a comment in the Your Ideas section instead of in a Conversation, but surely the column should be checked at least daily and any stray posts pulled out and put in the right place. The poor woman who posted it must feel terribly disappointed with Which? Conversation for ignoring her questions and her plea for help.

I suspect someone in the W?Cs management is extracting occasional comments from topics and posting them in the Ideas section. Several exceed the ‘permitted’ word count significantly but it has become something of a graveyard, I suspect.

Thank you Lauren. That all sounds promising. I think you are catching ‘Your Ideas’ just in time before it withers on the vine.

With regard to the 12 July comment I mentioned about a supermarket. I did subsequently notice, after a sizeable gap below, that there was a somewhat matter-of-fact response from Erin Elahi but I did not realise at the time that she was a Which? staffer – there was no such indication on her contribution although the content was a clue – I just didn’t pick it up. I am glad the woman who posted did get a fuller response and hopefully there was a happy outcome to the problem she raised.

I note that Erin has been around Which? Conversation for about six months and authored a couple of Conversations already so I am sorry I did not recognise her name in the Ideas section. I apologise for any disrespect she might feel I have shown.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

The genetic basis for illnesses etc is reasonably well-known amongst the interested and the afflicted. You may wonder why it is that drug doses etc seem to suit all sorts regardless of gender , weight and genetics ….

My father had the genetics of the Scndinavian and late in life the claw-hand syndrome kicked in
and if I could remember the medical term I would tell you! : )

Reverting to furniture. We have two great Scandanavian sofas – black leather and ply – which seem over the last couple of decades to have shrinking legs. This makes it harder to arise however I have seen, and at some stage will get or make, wooden blocks to fit around the current legs to boost them back up to a more normal height. In the interim I have plastic grid squares which have been put in use for in-law visits.

Given the grid is meant to be strong enough to prevent trucks sinking into grass they have stood up well to the treatment even without reinforcing earth or gravel. I recommend them.

A point to consider when choosing leather seating is the underlying construction and upholstery material. This is rarely explained but could make quite a difference to the comfort factor and indeed the reflection or dispersal of body warmth. We have two leather armchairs that are incredibly cosy which might be because the top of the seat cushion is upholstered in a thick fabric rather than the leather which is used for the back, sides and arms, but even these areas have a warm feel. By contrast our leather-covered dining chairs have a cooler feel for at least ten minutes before they equalise with the body temperature as Duncan explains. As Beryl suggests, the kind of hide presumably makes quite a difference, and possibly also the tanning process. A large proportion of the leather furniture sold today is manufactured in the far east and the characteristics of the hides and skins used will correspond with the nature of the animals in those regions according to geography, climate, and diet. The tanning process involves the use of many different chemicals and processes and can leave the outer surface coated or textured in a way that would resist temperature equalisation. I suspect that few of the sales personnel in ordinary furniture departments know a huge amount about this, but shops that specialise or major in leather upholstery, and offer a swatch of alternative leathers, should be able to explain the differences and suggest the best type of leather covering to suit the buyers’ requirements. The picture is complicated by the tendency these days for shops to offer ‘special deals’ on stain resistant coatings, or, where the furniture is bought straight from stock with no choice of finish, for it to come already coated. It has traditionally been taken for granted that the best quality upholstery leathers are made in the UK and Ireland but they have probably been priced out of the market now except at the highest luxury level.

I had an interesting 30 minute plus discussion with a chap whose firm dealt with the exotic leathers used by some very famous car manufacturers. All so apparently for pop start skirts with leather having to be couriered to Hollywood expecially for a star. However aside from the trivia we discussed partnership law, compulsory purchase and where the best leather comes from. Fascinating stuff.

I have a theory that Which? would be a more valuable resource if in the CAwiki [yet to be taken up] if it included specialists giving their knowledge from inside the trade.

I have had interesting discussions on sewing machines, the manufacturers good and bad, and the current state of the market. Why there is a dearth of fabric shops.

I feel sure we could have a very good summary article on washing machines and perhaps even a blow-up diagram. A chat on longevity would be good. We might deal with the 60C wash that is not and how that came about. A story of the EU and the consumer bodies making a major error.

Could be a great resource to gen up on before going shopping. It is a wonder that no one has taken on the idea. I am sure the trust in the Which? brand would make it a reason to subscribe.

Hello, Beryl – I cannot tell you much more about the stain resistant coatings. My only experience is when considering buying leather-covered seating and the salespeople always seemed to push this as a form of upselling. Nine years ago, after looking at sofas in a number of outlets, we bought a leather covered sofa from Furniture Village but declined the protective coating; the furniture has not shown any greater wear or deterioration in appearance than would be expected at nine years and is still in good condition. Admittedly we have not spilled food or drink on it and perhaps that’s where the coating proves its value.

Out of curiosity I just looked up ‘Leather’ on Wikipedia and was surprised to find a very extensive and interesting article on leather production including details on tanning and dyeing. I didn’t read it all the way through but you might like to have a look and see just what a lot of different processes and treatments are involved. It’s a bit of an eye-opener because there are some serious environmental implications. There is no doubt that leather upholstery is appealing from both aesthetic and practical viewpoints; we like it because it does not ‘date’ so quickly as patterned fabric coverings and is easy to keep looking decent, but – like all seating – it depends on the underlying structure and make-up of the supporting materials and the padding , and on how well they have been put together and finished.

I also googled ‘stain resistant coating for leather’ and a large number of technical sites and details came up but I am not sure whether they will satisfy your interest.

I wouldn’t doubt that HSL make all their furniture in the UK and I would hope they use British hides for their leather. I don’t think there are many tanneries left in England now but I came across Bradford Hide Co Ltd as one of the major suppliers to the furniture trade.