a quick question re. online buying

[e-rider]

if I order something online, and that item arrives damaged, is it down to the shop to sort it out?

I'm in a situation where the shop have put in a claim with the courier company for the damage, and based on whether they are successful or not, will decide whether I get sent a new item or not, and I simply lose out - surely this isn't right?

The shop should send me a replacement right, and then it's up to them to claim from the courier? Whether they are able to get the money back or not is no concern of mine.

 

[phil_hg_uk]

When it arrived was it obvious that it was damaged i.e. the packaging damaged ?

 

[Roadrider48]

A similar thing happened to my daughter when she purchased online from Boots.
She bought some make-up and it was delivered to the wrong address(even though she'd used them before).
The parcel was trackable and it turned out that it had been signed for by someone at this other address.
When she phoned Boots, they told her that it wasn't their responsibility and that she she should complain to the courier. Anyway, a few emails later and nothing changed. It seemed Boots attitude was we sent it out and that's it.
Bad show from a large retailer I think. But what can you do?

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

you are the customer of the shop. they are the customer of the courier company.
your 'contract/order' is with them, not the courier company so they should replace/refund and then they claim from the courier company.

 

[Markymark]

Often it's your property as soon as its dispatched. I would try and argue though.

 

[phil_hg_uk]

A similar thing happened to my daughter when she purchased online from Boots.
She bought some make-up and it was delivered to the wrong address(even though she'd used them before).
The parcel was trackable and it turned out that it had been signed for by someone at this other address.
When she phoned Boots, they told her that it wasn't their responsibility and that she she should complain to the courier. Anyway, a few emails later and nothing changed. It seemed Boots attitude was we sent it out and that's it.
Bad show from a large retailer I think. But what can you do?

It is the retailers responsibility to deliver the items to the correct address ( the address you supply ) under the sales of goods act, any agreement they have with the courier is their problem, so I would be telling them to refund the money or they will be reported.

Also as @User says report them to the credit card company and dispute it.

 

[Roadrider48]

I think she didn't bother in the end because it was quite cheap. Not sure though, because she lives elsewhere.

 

[spen666]

Often it's your property as soon as its dispatched. I would try and argue though.

Not in English Law.

You will find as others have said courier is agent of shop

 

[Markymark]

Ok

 

[e-rider]

It was a German online cycle shop - I guess that makes it much more complicated?

I should add here that I'd had such good service from Rose in Germany that I made the mistake of thinking all German shops must be the same - wrong!!!

A+for Rose though every time.

 

[vickster]

Credit card company. And look at German law

 

[e-rider]

[QUOTE 2965589, member: 45"]The store is responsible for the item until you receive it. They can't try to wriggle out of it like this.

Send it back. They've got no alternative but to refund you in full. You can then decide whether to reorder a replacement from them or buy from somewhere that treats its customers properly.[/quote]
The parcel was left at the back of my house so I didn't see it (but I did agree to letting them leave it there which was a mistake). Obviously if I'd have seen the parcel I wouldn't have accepted it in the first place.

 

[spen666]

[QUOTE 2965593, member: 45"]Tell your credit card company, who will then reclaim the money from the seller.[/quote]


This only applies if cost was over £100 of course

 

[spen666]

[QUOTE 2965732, member: 45"]Does it? I've had a card company block a charge of £66.[/quote]
The legal position is £100

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.
(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under sub-section (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a claim:
(a) under a non-commercial agreement,
(b) so far as the claim relates to a single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000, or
(c) under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit:
(i) which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and
(ii) which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one.

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under sub-section (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party in the proceedings.

75A (1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—
(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,
(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,
(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or
(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

(3)The steps referred to in subsection (2)(d) need not include litigation.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

(5)In this section “linked credit agreement” means a regulated consumer credit agreement which serves exclusively to finance an agreement for the supply of specific goods or the provision of a specific service and where—
(a)the creditor uses the services of the supplier in connection with the preparation or making of the credit agreement, or
(b)the specific goods or provision of a specific service are explicitly specified in the credit agreement.

(6)This section does not apply where—
(a)the cash value of the goods or service is £30, 000 or less,
(b)the linked credit agreement is for credit which exceeds £60, 260, or
(c)the linked credit agreement is entered into by the debtor wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

(7)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 16B (declaration by the debtor as to the purposes of the agreement) apply for the purposes of subsection (6)(c).

(8)This section does not apply to an agreement secured on land.

Section 75 Consumer Credit Act

 

[swee'pea99]

Possibly interestingly, I recently had a little to-do on the ebay forum after receiving a message from ebay saying: 'The seller apologises for sending the wrong thing: return it (at your own cost) to get a refund of the original price & p&p'. I protested to ebay that this seemed unfair to me. I've done nothing wrong. I've been let down, and now I have to go thru' the hassle of returning the damn thing - why should I have to end up out of pocket as well? They screwed up, not me. Surely they should bear any costs of putting the situation to rights? Needless to say, ebay just ignored me. But when I posted about it on the forums there, the basic response seemed to be 'It's in the Ts&Cs; if you don't like it, don't use ebay.' Still sucks, as far as I'm concerned.