From: bcc97 on

Raj (remove.) wrote:
> As most of my customers payup, there has never been need for me to look at
> DSR (surely there will be lot on this subject now).

The DSR impose obligations on sellers way before any customer cancels a
contract. Specifically, the seller has to provide information before
the contract is made (and further information after it is made, in
general).

If the seller ignores these obligations, they do themselves no favours
because they extend the consumer's cooling-off period to 3 months and
seven working days. During this time, there's nothing to stop the
consumer using the goods, so long as they take reasonable care of them,
and still claiming a full refund.

From: Alison Hopkins on

"Marcus Redd" <read(a)it.com> wrote in message
news:4574121c$0$6582$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "Need a little help please" <nospam(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:el130u$pre$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net...
>> Regardless of the circumstances that led to this situation which are
>> fundamentally entirely irrelevant, as a consumer purchasing from a
>> business and wishing to cancel under the Distance Selling Regulations,
>> you have done all that is required of you within the context of UK Law in
>> that you have submitted to the seller your request for cancellation
>> within the specified timeframe under the Distance Selling Regulations.
>>
>> The business is required to accept your cancellation without question or
>> dispute, to do otherwise is unlawful, and if you feel inclined, the
>> involvement of Trading Standards may refresh the memory of the business
>> in question as to their legal obligations, and to cease and desist their
>> unlawful stance of ignoring / refusing DSR cancellations, a practice not
>> only of detriment to their reputation, but that of eBay, and all who
>> choose to run legitimate business through the venue.
>
> Thankyou very, very much - a superbly informed and helpful response!

How do you know it's informed?

>
> I've emailed eBay again highlighting these points, and I'm about to get in
> touch with Trading Standards. I'll probably post back with their replies.

I think we can safely predict what they'll be.

>
> It's a shame that some of the others responding to my posts on this matter
> have't taken the time to inform themselves similarly. Given the amount of
> pontificating they do here, I really would have thought that they would
> have known such important things.

Are you *really* trusting Usenet for expert advice? Honestly?

Ali


From: Need a little help please on

"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tiilqF149vn4U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "Marcus Redd" <read(a)it.com> wrote in message
> news:4574121c$0$6582$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> "Need a little help please" <nospam(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
>> news:el130u$pre$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net...
>>> Regardless of the circumstances that led to this situation which are
>>> fundamentally entirely irrelevant, as a consumer purchasing from a

SNIP

>>> unlawful stance of ignoring / refusing DSR cancellations, a practice not
>>> only of detriment to their reputation, but that of eBay, and all who
>>> choose to run legitimate business through the venue.
>>
>> Thankyou very, very much - a superbly informed and helpful response!
>
> How do you know it's informed?

Quite simply, because it is very easily verifiable with the absolute bare
minimum of effort required:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/Business/Legal/DSR/default.htm


>
>>
>> I've emailed eBay again highlighting these points, and I'm about to get
>> in touch with Trading Standards. I'll probably post back with their
>> replies.
>
> I think we can safely predict what they'll be.
>

Agreed, assuming the circumstances are conveyed to Trading Standards as they
have been here, Trading Standards will find the consumer to have acted
correctly and have done all that is required of them in the context of UK
Law, and will find the business to be in breach of UK Law, and will then
proceed to remind the business in question that compliance is not optional.


>>
>> It's a shame that some of the others responding to my posts on this
>> matter have't taken the time to inform themselves similarly. Given the
>> amount of pontificating they do here, I really would have thought that
>> they would have known such important things.
>
> Are you *really* trusting Usenet for expert advice? Honestly?
>
> Ali

Given that expert advice, from experts, is so readily available from
official websites, it would be monumentally unwise to seriously rely on any
advise from non official sources, and efforts should always be made to
verify any information officially before any action commences, which in this
modern age is usually very easily done with the absolute bare minimum of
effort required.


From: Niel Humphreys on
"Need a little help please" <nospam(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
news:el130u$pre$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> Regardless of the circumstances that led to this situation which are
> fundamentally entirely irrelevant, as a consumer purchasing from a
> business and wishing to cancel under the Distance Selling Regulations, you
> have done all that is required of you within the context of UK Law in that
> you have submitted to the seller your request for cancellation within the
> specified timeframe under the Distance Selling Regulations.
>
> The business is required to accept your cancellation without question or
> dispute, to do otherwise is unlawful,

They haven't disputed it have they? As far as I understand the seller hasn't
entered into any discussion or negotiation with the buyer, therefore no
dispute.

The business is also perfectly entitled to claim back the Ebay fees
(commission) on the uncompleted transaction seeing as they have not received
the payment EBay have charged them fees for although the seller will lose
the fees he paid to list the auction in the first place. The automatic knock
on effect of course is that the buyer will be given a non-payment strike on
their account by Ebay. (Assuming the seller doesn't select 'mutually agreed
not to complete' which is correct as I am sure the seller is not agreeing
not to go ahead with the sale, only one of the 2 parties is pulling out so
there is no mutual agreement)

--

Niel H
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Snowdon-Computers
http://www.ebayfaq.co.uk/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Powersellers/


From: bcc97 on

Alison Hopkins wrote:
> I think we can safely predict what they'll be.

What's your prediction, then? One other poster has offered one. Would
be interesting to compare with the response the OP gets in the end.