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.




1355 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 182


# 138627 10-Jan-2014 20:12
One person supports this post
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
1672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 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

 


14907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2028


  # 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.

 
 
 
 


1672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 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.

14907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2028


  # 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.

1672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 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

Mad Scientist
20365 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2777

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 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




Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


1672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 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

 
 
 
 


4238 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1450


  # 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. 


4238 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1450


  # 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 :)

12907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4314

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 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.





1471 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 396


  # 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.

1766 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 431


  # 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 ??



8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 390

Trusted

  # 966114 13-Jan-2014 12:56
One person supports this post
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"

14907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2028


  # 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.



1355 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 182


  # 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 and LinkedIn »



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:





News »

Xero announces new smarter tools, push into the North American market
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:20


New report by Unisys shows New Zealanders want action by social platform companies and police to monitor social media sites
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:09


ASB adds Google Pay option to contactless payments
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:05


New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35


Air New Zealand uses drones to inspect aircraft
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:39


TCL Electronics launches its first-ever 8K TV
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:18


E-scooter share scheme launches in Wellington
Posted 17-Jun-2019 12:34


Anyone can broadcast with Kordia Pop Up TV
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:51


Volvo and Uber present production vehicle ready for self-driving
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:47


100,000 customers connected to fibre broadband network through Enable
Posted 13-Jun-2019 10:35


5G uptake even faster than expected
Posted 12-Jun-2019 10:01


Xbox showcases 60 anticipated games
Posted 10-Jun-2019 20:24


Trend Micro Turns Public Hotspots into Secure Networks with WiFi Protection for Mobile Devices
Posted 5-Jun-2019 13:24


Bold UK spinoff for beauty software company Flossie
Posted 2-Jun-2019 14:10


Amazon Introduces Echo Show 5
Posted 1-Jun-2019 15:32



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.