The Office of Fair Trading has asked eBay to advise business sellers that they are obliged to accept returns and restrictions such as “We do not accept returns due to hygiene” are unacceptable.
It is important to realise that the Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs) do not link return rights with a supplier’s ability to resell items as new. Sellers can direct customers to take reasonable care of the products such as not removing hygiene seals on garments or only trying out shoes indoors. However these stipulations cannot restrict
a consumer’s reasonable opportunity to examine the goods and buyers have the right to return them even if they fail to take
reasonable care of the goods.
The DSRs do give suppliers a right of action against consumers for breach of the statutory duty to take reasonable care. In other words if you get a garment return which hygiene strips have been removed from you can take the buyer to court although in reality the time and costs associated hardly make it worth the while.
It should also be noted that if a buyer informs you that they wish to return the item and cancel the contract that you’re obliged to fully refund them (including delivery costs) and you cannot insist on the goods being received back before you make the refund.
eBay do point out that this guidance only applies to business sellers and not to private sellers. I wouldn’t have thought many private sellers possess products with the hygiene seals still attached so it’s a bit of a moot point.
29 Responses
Trading Standards have asked us to bring to business sellers’ attention sections 3.41 to 3.44 of the following OFT advice on consumers’ right of return under the Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs’
They may bring it to the attention of sellers but will the amount of ‘we are not responsible for items lost in the post’ and ‘refund less original postage costs’ policies, some from larger front page businesses now reduce?
More money in second hand pants I would imagine 😐
There are currently 537 private sellers on eBay UK selling new “pants” in the lingerie section many with BINS selling in quantity.
If Clean but Used Pants are banned for Hygiene Reasons is this a critisism of the Washing Machine Industry because I would have thought that once they have gone through the average Washing Machine there would no longer be any problems with Hygiene or am I missing something. After all surely that is why we put our own pants in the wash and feel happy to wear them again a few days later once they have been washed, dried and aired.
Who in their right mind would want to buy used skiddy under kegs?
.
I am told there used to be a big market for ‘pre-used’ stuff by famous people…
Only trouble would be (assuming I was interested), how on earth do you confirm authenticity…..
I was checking in to see if Maria had posted any additional follow up on how she was handling this, and Whirly made me snort coffee through my nose. Nice.
I must admit that UI was confused by the use of the term “ADULT MATERIAL”. I always connect that term with material that should be kept on the top shelf or sold in shops with blacked out windows. Unless of course eBay or who ever it was who decided on the use of this term had other things in mind.
In regard to the ideas about wanting to buy used under garments. The problem I have is finding anything that fits new or secondhand. So if I do find anything in my size(such as 52inch chest etc) I tend to buy it. But I must admit that I cannot ever remember buying used under garments(probably could never find any if I was looking)
High street shops will not accept returned undies.
Trainers – type into ebay the following “gay trainers or scally trainers or gay scally trainers”
And yes they are used with “Markings” make of that what you will lol
Theres a market for them too, im gay but I would not buy such a thing, dont float my boat – but horses for courses.
lol
“It should also be noted that if a buyer informs you that they wish to return the item and cancel the contract that you’re obliged to fully refund them (including delivery costs) and you cannot insist on the goods being received back before you make the refund.”
Total rubbish, if this is true then I think a buying spree at pc world online and I will buy lots of things then ask them for a refund as im going to return them and never bother to return them… and quote this to them for the above.
No company is going to that, and my company will not be doing that, dont care if we do break the law, Talk about a way to rip any company off….
Office of fair trading – how about a bit of fair tarding for the retailers for once.
Hi,
Never posted before but been reading Tamebay for ages.
What I hadn’t heard before was
“It should also be noted that if a buyer informs you that they wish to return the item and cancel the contract that you’re obliged to fully refund them (including delivery costs) and you cannot insist on the goods being received back before you make the refund.”
I was told by ebay a short while back that they wouldn’t expect me to refund a customer until I had received the items back. They also asked me to advise the customer of that.
Just wanted to say a big thankyou to all the Tamebayers that have given me the heads up on SOOOOO many ebay policies, topics, rules or whatever you want to call them.
Just because the law says something, it doesn’t mean it’s fair.
The DSR’s are not fair towards the business, I think most would agree.
In the DSR’s it also says that the buyer should be allowed to examin an item “as they would in a shop” Well, they wouldn’t be able to rip open packets in a shop or “use” something in a shop, so they would fail in their obligation of care.
The fact is I have yet to have a customer say they are not going to post something back to us (yet) so the DSR point on this is not really important.
Postage can also be witheld, so long as the buyer chose a non-standard shipping option such as priority or express.
The language of the DSR’s is very inflamatory and imo should be re-worked to take into account the way people now shop.
It seems like they are trying to boost high street stores by killing online businesses.