"Can a UK company refund me like this?" Topic

OK, here is the story.

I placed a number of orders with a UK online retailer over the past few weeks. First two ones were on April 22nd (had to split it out since it contained paints and I had to keep it below the Royal Mail restrictions), the others April 29th and May 11th.

Yesterday I wondered what was holding these orders up and checked their online store. I found that a number were listed as unavailable from the manufacturer. So I gave them a call and asked how this would affect my orders. They were quiet friendly and honest and said that the manufacturer was unwilling to sell them these kinds of items and that this situation could persist. So what they offered to do was ship everything from all orders that was in stock (which they did shortly after), cancel those items not in stock and [quote:] "credit" me for them. To this I agreed.

Now I was expecting a refund to my PayPal account and what I got was a voucher for their own store. Which would be half as bad, but it is only valid for two months and unless they get these kinds of items back in stock, I can not see myself placing an order for that amount (the voucher has to be used in one go).

Can they do this under UK regulations? I know that under EU internet trading regulations I could cancel my purchase within 30 days after placing the order or after receipt (whatever happens last) without giving a reason and demand a refund. So this sounds highly suspicious to me.

THX,

Burkhard

P.S.: Before someone suggests so… I already eMailed them about it, but have not received an answer, although they are usually pretty fast.

Have a look here
link
Paragraph 15 should be of use.
Just wave the law at them!
Paul.

Even if this wasn't a mail order transaction, if it was over the counter, they couldn't force you to take a credit note. They can OFFER a credit note, but if you say you want your money refunded instead, then refund it they must do.

They're being a bit sneaky with this one…

THX Paul,

this was essentially what I was looking for!

If you paid via Paypal then just open a dispute with the PP people and that usually sees a refund in a very short space of time

@ Burkhard:

Sorry I've just re-read your original post, and without wanting to hijack your thread would like to ask you a question.

Are you saying you're getting a British company to send you paint? If so, how are you doing this? I know a German on another site, looking for suggestions on how to get paint shipped from the UK to him.

Maybe you can let me know how you are doing this? Thanks.

Thanks for the further information!

I know about the PayPal option, but I would like to be able to take a friendlier route with them right now.

@Cuchulainn: No problem with the highjack. Well he could always have the paints shipped via courier. What I did was order a maximum of four paints along with each order, making sure to split up larger bottles to the total ml below the threshold as well. Not very effective, but since I needed enough other stuff, it worked for me.
Funny thing is… When they amalgamated my orders yesterday and shipped everything in stock, they did so using Royal Mail even though it was now 16 pots of paint. Not sure if there is a hidden option or if they simply did not care.

I agree, opening a paypal dispute is a last resort. Far better to ask nicely and explain that you want your money back. Nine times out of ten you'll get what you ask for without getting into a dispute.

This slimy voucher ploy is definitely unfair to their customers.

Another Vendor employing dubious practises – name & shame them.
Paypal is hardly a last resort just a very simple one. But try the vendor again and say that you want a refund not a voucher.

This slimy voucher ploy is definitely unfair to their customers.

I don't think offering a voucher is a "slimy ploy". It is sometimes called a "credit note" and is a perfectly valid way of dealing with a sitiation like this where there is an expectation of further transactions.
link

However, in 14th Brooklyn's case he has said that he is unlikely to make any further purchases from this particular company, and therefore there should always be the option of a refund if a credit note is not acceptable.

The Credit note thing is usually only offered by retailers in UK if you're turn an item but do not have original receipt. In your case, they have no excuse, law is very clear re distance selling, straightforward refund to your PayPal account or hit them with a chargeback.

Re the paint issue- I recently bought two Vallajelo paint sets, 16 bottles in each, through Amazon. Delivered in one delivery by Royal Mail! Obviously there are ways round this stupid regulation.

Delivered in one delivery by Royal Mail! Obviously there are ways round this stupid regulation.

Perhaps by simply not stating what is in the package?

I asked in a local post office why there was the 150ml limit for water based paint. They told me it was inflammable. I corrected their understanding, at which point they told me I could send up to a litre then….

I agree, not refunding properly is tawdry.

I'd say it was a misunderstanding initially about who meant what by 'credit you with the difference'. They should have responded to your e-mail once you made it clear that you did not want a credit note and given you a PayPal refund.

I don't think this is in any way a 'dubious practice' or that the company is being dishonest – can't see why the credit note has an expiry date though.

The paint issue is a serious problem waiting to happen. Vendors are continuing to advertise RM as a shipping option for paints that cannot legally be sent that way. If you select the option and your parcel gets destroyed (and a number of them have already been !!) the vendor will tell you it is your problem as you made the selection. Try getting your money back from PayPal and see how far you get.

Pendraken have raised this with RM and had a very poor response. The reason given by the top nobs is the potential for damage to other goods if the paint leaks. Strange that you can send a litre of spirits in a glass bottle – and that is considered 'safe'.

FWIW the paint restriction is more to do with compying with Civil Aviation Authority requirements than RMG just being capricious. RMG would probably rather not have to bother procuring scanning equipment and applying restrictions which limit people using their services, but there are regulations around carrying dangerous goods, particularly by air (which does happen even for domestic post), that mean to some extent its hands are tied. It is unlikely to be a surprise that the dangerous goods regulations and related policies were never written with pots of vallejo paint in mind… :-)

DeltaBravo – the regulations are for internal post as well as international and have only recently been 'updated' – if you look at some of the items their restrictions are different to international ones.

The reason is more likely to be that, as they are now a private company, it will be easier to sue them for damage caused while in transit than it used to be.

While I would not be a fan of a store credit with an expiry, you do say you agreed to "credit", apparently without specifying terms. While the law may define the base case for how they interact with customers, you are free to make agreements that waive your rights as a customer. Potentially, they could claim you did.

One would hope that moral standards or, at least, a self interest in happy (or, at least, not ticked off) customers would drive them to do something other than claim protection from your agreement to accept "credit".

Seems like theyre trying to be cute, I'd ask for a paypal refund within 48hrs or a dispute will be logged.

@GildasFacit, is this true that they can now be sued? As previously they were protected by royal charter against that sort of thing (parcelforce were not covered by this though)

Major B, I have seen credit notes used but never with only a 60 day length in which is valid. As a vendor myself, IMHO, this make their use of it unacceptable.

Hi 14th Brooklyn

I think it has already been mentioned but this is probably a misunderstanding of the term "credit" me.

I have traveled in the US extensively and a very nice experience it was at all time's, living in the high density population of the UK the mid western USA is a major pull on the heart strings. But i will return to the question, so "credit" used as above in the USA tends to be interpreted as receiving the funds back into your account or cash back in the hand.

The term "Credit" you was probably fully intended as a credit note, we tend to use the term "Refund" for cash back issues so i would try and contact them directly again i am pretty sure they will sort out the issue for you.

DSR regulations and in the past i have had a lot to do with these are an EU based set of regulations covering transactions in the member states only and do not transfer to area's outside the EU in there entirety.

I wait to be corrected of coarse.

Well, here is the update. They offered to extend the voucher to six month and I stared that I would prefer a refund. A couple of minutes ago they asked for confirmation that I wanted a refund. Which I did.

Let's see how this turned out. They said that they usually offer a voucher since it was easier to do (which I beleave since this comes from numerous orders).

Let's see how this turns out. But i am positive and I do not think they actually meant any ill (which is why I did not mention names).

Thanks for all the input,

Burkhard

Off topic:

Gildas – I'm pretty sure the paint rule wasn't introduced due to the privatisation, as legally it made no difference to the ability to sue RMG. As to why the daft thing does exist, I have no particular insider knowledge but I strongly suspect it's simply a consequence of the clamp down on transporting DGs by the CAA (itself due largely to the issue of lithium batteries – so we're really into 'law of unintended consequences' territory).

Going seriously off topic, RMG uses aircraft on some of its UK distribution routes, such as Exeter to London, and as any item of mail in the system is potentially carried by air it all has to comply with the ICAO rules on DG goods even for domestic post. New international guidelines on what can/can't be posted came into force in 2013, enabling the CAA to grant RMG exemptions for certain things but at the expense of tighter monitoring of what gets put into the system. A "we'll let you off these items, if you do more to stop those items" kind of deal. Hence the greater focus by RMG on DG items generally, the introduction of scanners etc. If it weren't for all that, I seriously doubt RMG would have had the means to enforce (or inclination to implement) such an odd rule covering water-based paints.

RedBaron: To answer your query, yes RMG can be sued but it could also have been sued prior to the partial privatisation as Crown immunity for contract claims was lost way back in 1948, and I'm not sure that RMG would have qualified anyway as it was not an arm of Government as such, just a Government owned company that had its own legal status. Same applies to Parcelforce which is just a trading name – it's actually the same legal entity as Royal Mail.

Coming back to topic (ish):

Just to pick up one of the points in an earlier post above, a Vendor trying to tell a consumer that it's the consumer's problem that a paint packege got destryoyed by Royal Mail is on a hiding to nothing – risk of non-delivery remains with the vendor under various bits of consumer law, not least the DSRs.

(Sorry for the major thread creep but I'll declare a professional interest as a lawyer who has been involved in DG related stuff and its rare for work & hobby to mix – well, other than time spent on TMP whilst at work…!!)

Just to jump in with some quick info on the shipping paints fiasco:

RM told us some time ago now that water-based paints are not classed as Dangerous Goods (which we already knew and had been telling them from the get-go) and the restriction is something they have implemented themselves.

I recently had an email from the Chairman of RM, who reiterated that the restriction was due to the potential damage to other items in the postal network. One difference between them and ParcelForce is that PF process all their mail as cargo, whereas RM routinely use passenger aircraft instead. As such, some items require more restriction.

They are currently reviewing the policy though, and I'm expecting a reply from them with a result within the next couple of months hopefully.

If anyone hasn't done so yet, please sign up to the petition and pass it round your friends: link Every extra name adds a bit more weight to the campaign and keeps us on RM's radar.

Apologies for the temporary de-rail, back to your regular programming now…

I know you are talking the UK postal service. Being an American I have had to deal with the US postal service and have seldom had a problem. However i nthe USA, there still would be a limit on water based paint not due to flamable or hazardous but simply because it is a liquid. there is a limit on liquid amount in the package and that is not very much at all.

As to the refund issue as a pay Pal business account holder myself it is very easy to refund direct to your Pay Pal account all or part payments. It is the right thing to do. The only "excuse" for vouchers/credit notes would be if you returned all or part of an order because YOU changed your mind. Regardless of the law they are showing very poor customer service, you should be complemented for wanting to give them the chance to sort the problem amicably .
Ian
( Shell Hole & 20mmZone )