Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Buying anything on Amazon? Please use the Geekzone Amazon aff link.




636 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23


Topic # 138627 10-Jan-2014 20:12 Send private message

I have a faulty PSU which needs to be returned to the retailer.  It was purchased online, and the retailer is in Auckland (I'm in Palmerston North).  Who is required to pay for shipping?  I think the retailer's website says that I have to pay shipping costs for returning a component.  But I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Consumer Guarantees Act requires the retailer to cover shipping charges on faulty goods (though I can't find this specifically at the moment).

Does anyone know what the official position is?  Do I pay, or does the retailer pay for shipping?

Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
884 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 73

Subscriber

  Reply # 964903 10-Jan-2014 20:31 One person supports this post Send private message

  The  retailer pays for it

18Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees (1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies. (2) Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—
  • (a) require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:
  • (b) where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time,—
    • (i) have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or
(3) Where the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character within the meaning of section 21, the consumer may—
  • (b) obtain from the supplier damages in compensation for any reduction in value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.
(4) In addition to the remedies set out in subsection (2) and subsection (3), the consumer may obtain from the supplier damages for any loss or damage to the consumer resulting from the failure (other than loss or damage through reduction in value of the goods) which was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure.


section (4), cost of return shipping is a loss or damage

7490 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 420


  Reply # 964913 10-Jan-2014 21:09 Send private message

Although how can a retailer tell a customer that they should pay, via the terms of sale or the FAQs section on their website? Wouldn't doing that potentially mislead consumers on their rights under the CGA? I think most people do pay it, perhaps because they aren't aware of the laws, and as warranties are often 'return to base' but this would mean that the warranty is providing less coverage than what the CGA covers.
99% of websites I have seen, require the consumer to arrange for the return of the goods at the consumers cost. So good luck getting the retailer to pay.

884 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 73

Subscriber

  Reply # 964918 10-Jan-2014 21:21 Send private message

mattwnz: Although how can a retailer tell a customer that they should pay, via the terms of sale or the FAQs section on their website? Wouldn't doing that potentially mislead consumers on their rights under the CGA? I think most people do pay it, perhaps because they aren't aware of the laws, and as warranties are often 'return to base' but this would mean that the warranty is providing less coverage than what the CGA covers.
99% of websites I have seen, require the consumer to arrange for the return of the goods at the consumers cost. So good luck getting the retailer to pay.


But the CGA also says that a retailer cannot contract out of the CGA, so any retailer adding T&C's that go against the CGA are not enforcable

A lot of retailers rely on the buying public thinking that any T&C's that they add to a sale are valid and within the law and it's surprising the people that don't know any better.

7490 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 420


  Reply # 964922 10-Jan-2014 21:28 Send private message

gregmcc:
mattwnz: Although how can a retailer tell a customer that they should pay, via the terms of sale or the FAQs section on their website? Wouldn't doing that potentially mislead consumers on their rights under the CGA? I think most people do pay it, perhaps because they aren't aware of the laws, and as warranties are often 'return to base' but this would mean that the warranty is providing less coverage than what the CGA covers.
99% of websites I have seen, require the consumer to arrange for the return of the goods at the consumers cost. So good luck getting the retailer to pay.


But the CGA also says that a retailer cannot contract out of the CGA, so any retailer adding T&C's that go against the CGA are not enforcable

A lot of retailers rely on the buying public thinking that any T&C's that they add to a sale are valid and within the law and it's surprising the people that don't know any better.


Doesn't the fair trading act though forbid retailers misleading consumers on their rights, which would include the contents of their terms and conditions. So they shouldn't have those terms in their to begin with. But I am guessing no one is really enforcing it due to lack of resources.

884 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 73

Subscriber

  Reply # 964927 10-Jan-2014 21:51 Send private message

mattwnz:
gregmcc:
mattwnz: Although how can a retailer tell a customer that they should pay, via the terms of sale or the FAQs section on their website? Wouldn't doing that potentially mislead consumers on their rights under the CGA? I think most people do pay it, perhaps because they aren't aware of the laws, and as warranties are often 'return to base' but this would mean that the warranty is providing less coverage than what the CGA covers.
99% of websites I have seen, require the consumer to arrange for the return of the goods at the consumers cost. So good luck getting the retailer to pay.


But the CGA also says that a retailer cannot contract out of the CGA, so any retailer adding T&C's that go against the CGA are not enforcable

A lot of retailers rely on the buying public thinking that any T&C's that they add to a sale are valid and within the law and it's surprising the people that don't know any better.


Doesn't the fair trading act though forbid retailers misleading consumers on their rights, which would include the contents of their terms and conditions. So they shouldn't have those terms in their to begin with. But I am guessing no one is really enforcing it due to lack of resources.


I think it is due to a lack of resources, most retailers once presented with the relevent law comply, some need a nudge with a formal complaint been filed with the comcom, and the last remaning few end up on the receiving end of a proscution

8329 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 569

Trusted

  Reply # 964981 11-Jan-2014 00:16 Send private message

i have a feeling to activate the CGA costs more than your return to retailer shipping

884 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 73

Subscriber

  Reply # 964991 11-Jan-2014 05:28 Send private message

All it usually take is a nicely worded letter/email pointing out their obligations under the CGA, this is the point most retailers realise that hey, this customer has gone to the trouble to figure out what their legal entitlements are and trying to waste time and money pulling the wool over their eyes just isn't worth it.

Again it is your choice as well, you could just give in and pay for the shipping your self, depends on if you want to go to the bother to deal with it as well

1608 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 231


  Reply # 965020 11-Jan-2014 09:12 Send private message

mattwnz: Although how can a retailer tell a customer that they should pay, via the terms of sale or the FAQs section on their website? Wouldn't doing that potentially mislead consumers on their rights under the CGA? I think most people do pay it, perhaps because they aren't aware of the laws, and as warranties are often 'return to base' but this would mean that the warranty is providing less coverage than what the CGA covers.
99% of websites I have seen, require the consumer to arrange for the return of the goods at the consumers cost. So good luck getting the retailer to pay.


Just another example of a pathetic commerce commission.   They are responsible for ensuring retailers comply with the CGA, yet they do not do the most basic checks of online store policies. 

Our commerce commission are absolutely useless!!  And, if you complain to them about a store, they will return a form letter saying that they will not investigate due to the lowly nature of the complaint. 


1608 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 231


  Reply # 965021 11-Jan-2014 09:14 Send private message

gregmcc: All it usually take is a nicely worded letter/email pointing out their obligations under the CGA, this is the point most retailers realise that hey, this customer has gone to the trouble to figure out what their legal entitlements are and trying to waste time and money pulling the wool over their eyes just isn't worth it.

Again it is your choice as well, you could just give in and pay for the shipping your self, depends on if you want to go to the bother to deal with it as well


Wrong (in my opinion). The cost of postage is less than the cost of disputing in court so the retailer has nothing to lose other than a customer and there are plenty of other suckers out there. 

Call me jaundiced :)

2803 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 504

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 965032 11-Jan-2014 09:56 Send private message

Lizard1977: I have a faulty PSU which needs to be returned to the retailer.  It was purchased online, and the retailer is in Auckland (I'm in Palmerston North).  Who is required to pay for shipping?  I think the retailer's website says that I have to pay shipping costs for returning a component.  But I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Consumer Guarantees Act requires the retailer to cover shipping charges on faulty goods (though I can't find this specifically at the moment).

Does anyone know what the official position is?  Do I pay, or does the retailer pay for shipping?


IMV the retailer and they should volunteer to do so, not require their arm to be twisted.








443 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 51


  Reply # 965059 11-Jan-2014 11:37 Send private message

Remember not all retailers purchases are covered under the CGA. Ie. If someone purchases for Business purposes then the CGA goes out the window.

This means they are within their rights to specify RTB (return to base) warranty. Of course your statuary rights may entitle you to more than a RTB warranty.

Is it misleading for them to make blanket statements (like "you must ship the product back to us") when they should outline different procedures for differing circumstances? Possibly.

Personally I've never once had a supplier pay shipping (both directions) on a returned computer component, and i'e returned many things over the years. It doesn't really bother me, but if it was something like a fridge, then I would be pressuring them more.

244 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 966098 13-Jan-2014 12:31 Send private message

mattwnz:
Doesn't the fair trading act though forbid retailers misleading consumers on their rights, which would include the contents of their terms and conditions. So they shouldn't have those terms in their to begin with. But I am guessing no one is really enforcing it due to lack of resources.


Many retailers & many industries have a COMPLETE DISREGARD for the CGA .
There simply arnt any prosecution for misleading consumers re CGA rights & obligation.
The last 4 companies I worked for the CGA was ignored, unless the customer really pushed the issue . CGA was something that was NEVER discussed by management .

Its not just small companies, its large retailers pushing sales of 'warranty extensions' on customers.
Just how is that not fraud ??



7777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 326

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 966114 13-Jan-2014 12:56 Send private message

Sounds like you bought from one of the cheapest etailer's on price spy, it's not surprising they cut corners on customer service.

For comparison: I've had to RMA a couple of times with stuff purchased from Ascent and Computer Lounge, you fill in a form on their websites and they send out a prepaid courier box/envelope for you to send the product back.

"you get what you pay for"

7490 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 420


  Reply # 966148 13-Jan-2014 13:56 Send private message

surfisup1000:
mattwnz: Although how can a retailer tell a customer that they should pay, via the terms of sale or the FAQs section on their website? Wouldn't doing that potentially mislead consumers on their rights under the CGA? I think most people do pay it, perhaps because they aren't aware of the laws, and as warranties are often 'return to base' but this would mean that the warranty is providing less coverage than what the CGA covers.
99% of websites I have seen, require the consumer to arrange for the return of the goods at the consumers cost. So good luck getting the retailer to pay.


Just another example of a pathetic commerce commission.   They are responsible for ensuring retailers comply with the CGA, yet they do not do the most basic checks of online store policies. 

Our commerce commission are absolutely useless!!  And, if you complain to them about a store, they will return a form letter saying that they will not investigate due to the lowly nature of the complaint. 



I had a stock letter like that from them too once, and they even said that it looked like the company had possibly breeched, but wouldn't be taking further action, and I should get back to the retailer to sort it out. It simply isn't work wasting time complaining to them.  I don't really blame them, as they probably have limited budgets and staff. But I do wonder about why we bother having these laws if they aren't enforced.



636 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23


  Reply # 966182 13-Jan-2014 14:34 Send private message

In the end, I decided to pay for the shipping cost myself. I agree with those who say that the retailer should pay, but with everything else that's going on at the moment (a long story), I couldn't be bothered gearing up for an argument. If I had, it would have delayed the replacement by several days, and I just decided that the cost of shipping was worth expediting the replacement process. If it was really expensive to ship back, then I might have argued for the retailer to pay.

Now just hoping for a quick resolution. The PSU fault was erratic and intermittent, which always makes me twitchy about requesting a replacement. Seems like it would be too easy for the store to do a quick test, confirm it starts up, and then reject the replacement request...

 1 | 2
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




Twitter »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





Trending now »

Hot discussions in our forums right now:

My un-consented UFB install
Created by thurthur, last reply by mdooher on 28-Nov-2014 18:57 (79 replies)
Pages... 4 5 6


This is the end ...
Created by joker97, last reply by davidcole on 28-Nov-2014 21:30 (53 replies)
Pages... 2 3 4


Gigatown winner town and plans
Created by freitasm, last reply by Demeter on 28-Nov-2014 08:59 (76 replies)
Pages... 4 5 6


Seen any good Black Friday / Cyber Monday deals?
Created by Jaxson, last reply by ckc on 28-Nov-2014 15:08 (24 replies)
Pages... 2


Gull Employment Dispute.
Created by networkn, last reply by richms on 28-Nov-2014 17:57 (153 replies)
Pages... 9 10 11


Stuff.co.nz hacked by Syrian electronic army?
Created by surfisup1000, last reply by dclegg on 28-Nov-2014 13:35 (17 replies)
Pages... 2


What the hell MyRepublic!?
Created by gished, last reply by pohutukawa on 28-Nov-2014 17:45 (16 replies)
Pages... 2


The Warehouse pulling R18 games and DVD's
Created by semigeek, last reply by Geektastic on 27-Nov-2014 18:32 (64 replies)
Pages... 3 4 5



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.