Retailer rejecting return [missed return window]

63
Posted 5th Nov
1st time this has happened to but I've had retailer that refused to make refund after sending the clothing items back.

Long story short:
1.Purchase clothing items.
2. Package is sent but since I wasn't at home it's being held at local delivery office (RM)
3. After 18days it's being sent back to the retailer. Outside the 14days return window.
4. I have been given a voucher option for the value of the order that I'm rejecting
5. The retailer is rejecting my claim where on their website it says:
Three delivery attempts will be made as a signature is required, 2 calling cards will be left and on the third attempt held at depot, where the item will be returned to us after 5 days.
I am claiming that the package should be sent back, I'm not at fault that it's been held causing the missed return window.
Made a dispute with amex and have only been given partial (30% refund).
Is it fair to pursue the Small Claims Court route for the remaining part?
Community Updates
Ask

Groups

Top comments
You say a delivery attempt was made and your package was being held for you at your local Royal Mail sorting office as you weren't home at the time. I have had Royal Mail attempt deliveries when I haven't been home and they leave a card showing the address and opening times of the sorting office so you can collect in person, the card also has a telephone number to contact your local sorting office to rearrange a delivery. So, the question that springs to my mind is ...

Why didn't you go and collect it from the sorting office or arrange for a delivery when you were home rather than leaving it sat there for Royal Mail to return?
I would suggest using Resolver. it's free

I had an issue with John Lewis where a product was faulty after 4 years and the exact same replacement was being offered with a 5 year warranty. JL told me that my original product only came with a 3 year warranty and when I asked for proof of that they couldn't give evidence. They basically told me to sling my hook. Resolver got involved and I was given a full refund of the original purchase.

However it has been pointed out to you that your non action doesn't help your cause. It seems as if you changed your mind and wanted to avoid return postage fees.
Edited by: "OllieSt" 5th Nov
63 Comments
Would the basis of your claim be exclusively failure for the 3 delivery attempts apparently not being made?
They have no choice but to accept the return as you’ve never actually received the item. It’s not you returning the item it’s the item been returned from Royal Mail for none delivery.
Small Claims costs money!
Even if your claim is found in your favour you still have a battle royal to get your money back. I suspect the value of your purchase is simply not worth pursuing through SCC - the phrase throwing good money after bad comes to mind.
I also suspect there is a case to be argued that you should have been actively involved in ensuring delivery of an order you placed.
Being a little more positive do you think there could be a good outcome if you were prepared to name and shame them on social media - with all the risks that poses?
Edited by: "tardytortoise" 5th Nov
You say a delivery attempt was made and your package was being held for you at your local Royal Mail sorting office as you weren't home at the time. I have had Royal Mail attempt deliveries when I haven't been home and they leave a card showing the address and opening times of the sorting office so you can collect in person, the card also has a telephone number to contact your local sorting office to rearrange a delivery. So, the question that springs to my mind is ...

Why didn't you go and collect it from the sorting office or arrange for a delivery when you were home rather than leaving it sat there for Royal Mail to return?
tardytortoise05/11/2019 13:56

Small Claims costs money!Even if your claim is found in your favour you …Small Claims costs money!Even if your claim is found in your favour you still have a battle royal to get your money back. I suspect the value of your purchase is simply not worth pursuing through SCC - the phrase throwing good money after bad comes to mind.I also suspect there is a case to be argued that you should have been actively involved in ensuring delivery of an order you placed.Being a little more positive do you think there could be a good outcome if you were prepared to name and shame them on social media - with all the risks that poses?


Totally disagree..

Use Money Claim Online (gov.uk/mak…ees), costs £25 for a claim up to £300..
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 14:08

Totally disagree.. Use Money Claim Online …Totally disagree.. Use Money Claim Online (https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees), costs £25 for a claim up to £300..



Your disagreement noted. £25 to make the claim is real hard money in my book - could be 10% or just short. We all have our own values - for me in this case it is too much to fork out. There is also a possibility there could be a court hearing which costs money to attend.

Bare in mind before SCC there is the 'Practice Direction on pre-action conduct and protocols'
justice.gov.uk/cou…uct

And I said winning a case is the easy bit; the next cost is enforcing the claim.

And of course, besides the monetary cost there is the stress.

Citizens Advice have some really good web pages on SCC
citizensadvice.org.uk/law…ms/
I would suggest using Resolver. it's free

I had an issue with John Lewis where a product was faulty after 4 years and the exact same replacement was being offered with a 5 year warranty. JL told me that my original product only came with a 3 year warranty and when I asked for proof of that they couldn't give evidence. They basically told me to sling my hook. Resolver got involved and I was given a full refund of the original purchase.

However it has been pointed out to you that your non action doesn't help your cause. It seems as if you changed your mind and wanted to avoid return postage fees.
Edited by: "OllieSt" 5th Nov
AndyRoyd05/11/2019 13:41

Would the basis of your claim be exclusively failure for the 3 delivery …Would the basis of your claim be exclusively failure for the 3 delivery attempts apparently not being made?


It seems as if the retailer's website is not up to date/incorrect. I do believe that Royal Mail used to automatically re-deliver a missed delivery, but they do not any more.

I think the OP, with the help of Resolver, should get a full refund
Edited by: "OllieSt" 5th Nov
I second resolver. In your 'l letter' to the MD point out that they did not fulfill the points that they stipulates they will carry out, ie the three attempts and a card. If you had received the card you would have picked up your items. Also point out that though you ordered the items, though they hadn't arrived you didn't chase them up as deliveries are often late through no fault of the vendor or buyer. Also, I would digest you offer a solution that would be acceptable to both parties... a credit for the full amount, rather than having the items redelivered ( when you spend your credit they will only make half the profit, but they will make a profit, and you get goods to the value..).
Definitely try resolver, its free and companies do take notice of them.
@mspychala
From the wording of your descriptions , you said your claim was justified on "the 14 days return window".
Your justifcation is wrong, the fact that the goods were returned was not due to the "the 14 day return window", the so called 14 day grace, it was due to supplier having tried to (via Royal Mail) to deliver to you many times reasonably and you, as the recipient, did not go to the named Royal Mail depot, nor contact the company's customer services to arrange for another delivery with further useful information to enhance the chance of a success.

Therefore, the supplier was perfectly entitled not to offer a cash refund and was also entitled to deduct delivery charge in law. The 14 days grace return window is relevant when you had received the goods in the first instance. You will find this if you read their terms again, unless they were worded badly.
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
"Three delivery attempts will be made as a signature is required, 2 calling cards will be left and on the third attempt held at depot, where the item will be returned to us after 5 days"

TWC?

The above isn't part of their T&C so it's at their discretion what they do, it's not contractual if it's not in their terms.
Edited by: "4Real2016" 5th Nov
OllieSt05/11/2019 14:33

It seems as if the retailer's website is not up to date/incorrect. I do …It seems as if the retailer's website is not up to date/incorrect. I do believe that Royal Mail used to automatically re-deliver a missed delivery, but they do not any more.I think the OP, with the help of Resolver, should get a full refund


Three delivery attempts wouldn't apply to RM but would apply to current procudures for many courier services, which for whatever reason the merchant chose not to use.
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 14:08

Totally disagree.. Use Money Claim Online …Totally disagree.. Use Money Claim Online (https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees), costs £25 for a claim up to £300..



I would totally disagree with your advice. The complainant has no case. The critical point is, the complainant failed to collect at the designated Royal Mail depot and did not contact the seller to do something.

tardytortoise05/11/2019 13:56

Small Claims costs money!Even if your claim is found in your favour you …Small Claims costs money!Even if your claim is found in your favour you still have a battle royal to get your money back. I suspect the value of your purchase is simply not worth pursuing through SCC - the phrase throwing good money after bad comes to mind.I also suspect there is a case to be argued that you should have been actively involved in ensuring delivery of an order you placed.Being a little more positive do you think there could be a good outcome if you were prepared to name and shame them on social media - with all the risks that poses?



You are correct, there is no case for the seller to answer, the complainant acted unreasonably (as stated by the complainant in the OP comment).
AndyRoyd05/11/2019 13:41

Would the basis of your claim be exclusively failure for the 3 delivery …Would the basis of your claim be exclusively failure for the 3 delivery attempts apparently not being made?


No OP response to Q so to guess at some dull options:
one option based on: "...3. After 18days it's being sent back to the retailer. Outside the 14days return window..."
Considering a CCR 2013 off-premises sale provides mandatory 14day cooling off period you could argue that the mandatory 14day cooling off period has not been triggered as the 14 days commences when the goods "come into the physical possession of the consumer", and you have not "come into the physical possession" of the goods. That will likely be countered by the trader suggesting that its courier's delivery attempt(s) satisfies the trigger of the 14days and as you were aware of the (likely) delivery date you simply unreasonably chose to not be available for delivery; couldn't be bothered to pickup; or were to scrooge-like to pay 50p to rearrange delivery to local & presumably convenient PO. Not aware of any legal precedents for such a weak defence, and is likely to fail in your favour
Another option: "...Three delivery attempts will be made as a signature is required, 2 calling cards will be left and on the third attempt held at depot, where the item will be returned to us after 5 days.." where simply (presumably) you can show that three attempts were not made, Just check the "3 attempts" statement is wholly applicable to your specific order, and not just one shipping option the merchant could use.
splender05/11/2019 14:48

I would totally disagree with your advice. The complainant has no case. …I would totally disagree with your advice. The complainant has no case. The critical point is, the complainant failed to collect at the designated Royal Mail depot and did not contact the seller to do something.You are correct, there is no case for the seller to answer, the complainant acted unreasonably (as stated by the complainant in the OP comment).


Not at all.

Can't argue you returned it outside the agreed return window if you hadn't even received it.

It's not the buyer's responsibility to ensure safe delivery.
Did you not wonder where your package was after about a week and contact the retailer asking where’s my item.

I am assuming Royal Mail didn’t leave you card which is why it was stuck in the sorting office for such a long time and sent back.

I don’t think you’ve really helped yourself with this one. You could have been more proactive chasing up your parcel.
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 14:50

Not at all. Can't argue you returned it outside the agreed return window …Not at all. Can't argue you returned it outside the agreed return window if you hadn't even received it. It's not the buyer's responsibility to ensure safe delivery.



No, you cannot argue for the sake of argue. If you want to argue, you need the cut and paste the seller's terms here. Otherwise, you are arguing because you want to argue in a party and want to have fun taking the micky.

Edit

@mspychala because of what you had typed, unless you quote the seller's terms for returns here (over and above the legal minimum), we are not going to get any where with your question. Because, we need the contractual terms here to advise you. In so far as the law is concerned, the seller had fulfilled already their contractual obligation (Royal Mail tried to deliver to you reasonably).
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
splender05/11/2019 14:53

No, you cannot argue for the sake of argue. If you want to argue, you need …No, you cannot argue for the sake of argue. If you want to argue, you need the cut and paste the seller's terms here. Otherwise, you are arguing because you want to argue in a party and want to have fun taking the micky.


citizensadvice.org.uk/con…ed/


You can tell the seller that what has happened to your order is "a breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015" if you either:

  • told the seller the delivery date was essential and they didn’t meet it
  • agreed with the seller a delivery date which wasn't essential, and a second delivery date also wasn’t met
  • didn’t agree a delivery date with the seller and a second chance to deliver wasn’t successful

@splender - sounds a lot like the last option to me?

Or are you too busy pretending to by a solicitor?
Edited by: "adam_holcombe" 5th Nov
i take it you never actually received the goods, if so:
below taken from the Which website. see the mention below day you received the goods.

Online returns timelines You have the right to cancel at any time from the moment you place your online order, and up to 14 days from the day you receive your goods. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘cooling-off period’.

You need to notify the retailer of your wish to cancel your order within this time period – by email, for example.

You then have a further 14 days from the date you notify the retailer of your cancellation.
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 14:59

Yes, you can. You can cancel and ask for your money back if you don’t get t …Yes, you can. You can cancel and ask for your money back if you don’t get the item either:within 30 days of buying ithttps://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-you-ordered-hasnt-been-delivered/


No, your comprehension and application of this page is wrong (plus your historical accummulated knowledge).

1.The title of the CAB page that you qouted says, " If something you ordered hasn't arrived." <-- it has arrived, at a Royal Mail depot
2. Your quoted link, first sentence, "If you bought something from a business to be delivered, it’s the seller’s responsibility to make sure the item is delivered to you." <=== it was delivered, at a Royal Mail depot (just like, say, a bicycle was delivered to Halfords and you have to go to pick up your own bike).

3. You want to cancel your order You can cancel and ask for your money back if you don’t get the item either:

within 30 days of buying it <=== if and only if it were not delivered , that's why the page title said what it said!
on the date you agreed with the seller - if it was essential to receive it by then (for example, for an event)on the date of the second chance delivery you agreed with the seller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, the legal minimum to rights position, you can cancel and return an online order within 14 days of receipt for any reason (unless the seller's contract term says otherwise). This is otherwise known as the "Cooling Off" period, or "Buyer's Remorse"). The buyer has to act reasonably in cancelling due to change of mind about this purchase
Wow retailer pays someone to pick, pack your clothes and get it to your door now they have to pay to get it back, RM fees, check returns and put it back in their warehouse. Cost them at least £20+. It should be the retailer taking you to court not the other way around. Its because of these serial returners that will ruin it for all of us. Rules will become stricter on returns and why some have click & collect charge.
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 14:59

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-you-ordered-hasnt-been-delivered/You can tell the seller that what has happened to your order is "a breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015" if you either:told the seller the delivery date was essential and they didn’t meet itagreed with the seller a delivery date which wasn't essential, and a second delivery date also wasn’t met didn’t agree a delivery date with the seller and a second chance to deliver wasn’t successful @splender - sounds a lot like the last option to me? Or are you too busy pretending to by a solicitor?


There is no need for me to apply legal knowledge, you did not comprehend the meaning of the pages that you found.
mannin05/11/2019 15:13

i take it you never actually received the goods, if so:below taken from …i take it you never actually received the goods, if so:below taken from the Which website. see the mention below day you received the goods.Online returns timelines You have the right to cancel at any time from the moment you place your online order, and up to 14 days from the day you receive your goods. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘cooling-off period’.You need to notify the retailer of your wish to cancel your order within this time period – by email, for example.You then have a further 14 days from the date you notify the retailer of your cancellation.


Correct, key sentence highlighted is "...days from the day you receive your goods."
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 14:59

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-you-ordered-hasnt-been-delivered/You can tell the seller that what has happened to your order is "a breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015" if you either:told the seller the delivery date was essential and they didn’t meet itagreed with the seller a delivery date which wasn't essential, and a second delivery date also wasn’t met didn’t agree a delivery date with the seller and a second chance to deliver wasn’t successful @splender - sounds a lot like the last option to me? Or are you too busy pretending to by a solicitor?



Your comprehension is suspect, you quoted, "You can tell the seller that what has happened to your order is "a breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015"

What do you think was the breach of contract?!
splender05/11/2019 14:48

I would totally disagree with your advice. The complainant has no case. …I would totally disagree with your advice. The complainant has no case. The critical point is, the complainant failed to collect at the designated Royal Mail depot and did not contact the seller to do something.You are correct, there is no case for the seller to answer, the complainant acted unreasonably (as stated by the complainant in the OP comment).


Set aside the retailer voluntary offer of 14day return window. Do you not think OP has option to use the mandatory 14 days cooling off period as provided by CCR 2013, regardless of the commencement of the 14day cooling off period not being triggered by the goods not having "come into the physical possession" of OP? (pls excuse the multiple negatives!)
splender05/11/2019 15:24

No, your comprehension and application of this page is wrong (plus your …No, your comprehension and application of this page is wrong (plus your historical accummulated knowledge).1.The title of the CAB page that you qouted says, " If something you ordered hasn't arrived." <-- it has arrived, at a Royal Mail depot 2. Your quoted link, first sentence, "If you bought something from a business to be delivered, it’s the seller’s responsibility to make sure the item is delivered to you." <=== it was delivered, at a Royal Mail depot (just like, say, a bicycle was delivered to Halfords and you have to go to pick up your own bike). 3. You want to cancel your order You can cancel and ask for your money back if you don’t get the item either:within 30 days of buying it <=== if and only if it were not delivered , that's why the page title said what it said! on the date you agreed with the seller - if it was essential to receive it by then (for example, for an event)on the date of the second chance delivery you agreed with the seller----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In summary, the legal minimum to rights position, you can cancel and return an online order within 14 days of receipt for any reason (unless the seller's contract term says otherwise). This is otherwise known as the "Cooling Off" period, or "Buyer's Remorse"). The buyer has to act reasonably in cancelling due to change of mind about this purchase


Stop making up stuff..!

The actual law can be found here.

"The contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer."


1. No it hasn't "arrived". The the royal mail depot isn't the delivery address.
2. Again, it wasn't delivered to the buyer, as was requested.
3. On last time, THE ITEM WAS NOT DELIVERED.

It's the seller's responsibility to ensure delivery to the consumer.

Edited by: "adam_holcombe" 5th Nov
MR112305/11/2019 15:24

Wow retailer pays someone to pick, pack your clothes and get it to your …Wow retailer pays someone to pick, pack your clothes and get it to your door now they have to pay to get it back, RM fees, check returns and put it back in their warehouse. Cost them at least £20+. It should be the retailer taking you to court not the other way around. Its because of these serial returners that will ruin it for all of us. Rules will become stricter on returns and why some have click & collect charge.



Yeah, someone on this thread tries to justify why the seller should be stuffed without using the consumer advisory pages effectively! The seller is not in the wrong.
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 15:32

Stop making up stuff..!The actual law can be found here."The contract is …Stop making up stuff..!The actual law can be found here."The contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer."1. No it hasn't "arrived". The the royal mail depot isn't the delivery address. 2. Again, it wasn't delivered to the buyer, as was requested.3. On last time, THE ITEM WAS NOT DELIVERED. It's the seller's responsibility to ensure delivery to the consumer.



It arrived at the Royal Mail depot, sale contract fulfilled (unless seller's term says otherwise).

By the way, you had written yesterday, "Wow, you are fun at a party."

Now, I know what you mean at your parties when you wrote what you did.
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
splender05/11/2019 15:37

It arrived at the Royal Mail depot, sale contract fulfilled (unless …It arrived at the Royal Mail depot, sale contract fulfilled (unless seller's term says otherwise).


4th time..


"The contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer."


The trader HAS NOT delivered goods to the consumer.

By your logic, items that get lost at a depot are still deemed delivered!




38909303-V32XZ.jpg
Edited by: "adam_holcombe" 5th Nov
splender05/11/2019 15:37

It arrived at the Royal Mail depot, sale contract fulfilled (unless …It arrived at the Royal Mail depot, sale contract fulfilled (unless seller's term says otherwise).


CCR 2013 states item must "come into the physical possession of the consumer", so (politely) the contract is not fulfilled, regardless of seller's terms that cannot override legislation. But the seller may have an as-yet unidentified escape route.
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 15:39

4th time.. "The contract is to be treated as including a term that the …4th time.. "The contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer."The trader HAS NOT delivered goods to the consumer. By your logic, items that get lost at a depot are still deemed delivered! [Image]


Stop helping the op you banana.
AndyRoyd05/11/2019 15:40

CCR 2013 states item must "come into the physical possession of the …CCR 2013 states item must "come into the physical possession of the consumer", so (politely) the contract is not fulfilled, regardless of seller's terms that cannot override legislation. But the seller may have an as-yet unidentified escape route.



Passing of risk is an extra delivery protection right , a contract can be made, with/without passing of risk. A claim needs to be specific whether it is a "sale of contract" case or a "passing of risk" case from the fact of the matter.
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
splender05/11/2019 16:21

Passing of risk is an extra delivery protection right , a contract can be …Passing of risk is an extra delivery protection right , a contract can be made, with/without passing of risk. A claim needs to be specific whether it is a "sale of contract" case or a "passing of risk" case from the fact of the matter.


Where's the legislation that says that?
Surprising how much discussion there is over a simple matter.

The goods were returned to the merchant without ever reaching the customer.

The full value of the order including original shipping costs should be returned. That is all.
adam_holcombe05/11/2019 16:38

Where's the legislation that says that?



What is your point? Do you think "passing of risk" has relevance here?
if so, state why, using the statements from the OP's post to construct your rationale.
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
1. The consumer(buyer) cannot return anything they have not received within 14 days. If payment has been taken the consumer can claim full refund for non-delivery
2. If, the consumer says they returned goods within the14 day period because they changed their mind then yes the consumer has a claim.
3. But if the carrier returns the goods at any time then the consumer(buyer) has a claim as per 1 above,

My guess is the OP has caused confusion and there has been a lack of understanding about all the circumstances. The seller has assumed the buyer returned the goods when in effect they did not because they did not receive them. It was the carrier who returned the goods. Because of the long time gap the seller has assumed it was the buyer who returned late.
A logical, presentable case of the circumstances should sort matters out to the buyers satisfaction. I do fear though that once someone accepts a partial solution - in this case30% from amex then it becomes very difficult if not impossible to get the rest.
tardytortoise05/11/2019 17:15

1. The consumer(buyer) cannot return anything they have not received …1. The consumer(buyer) cannot return anything they have not received within 14 days. If payment has been taken the consumer can claim full refund for non-delivery2. If, the consumer says they returned goods within the14 day period because they changed their mind then yes the consumer has a claim.3. But if the carrier returns the goods at any time then the consumer(buyer) has a claim as per 1 above,My guess is the OP has caused confusion and there has been a lack of understanding about all the circumstances. The seller has assumed the buyer returned the goods when in effect they did not because they did not receive them. It was the carrier who returned the goods. Because of the long time gap the seller has assumed it was the buyer who returned late.A logical, presentable case of the circumstances should sort matters out to the buyers satisfaction. I do fear though that once someone accepts a partial solution - in this case30% from amex then it becomes very difficult if not impossible to get the rest.


Hi Tortoise,

It should be abundantly clear to the retailer that the item has been returned to sender by Royal Mail, and I believe it may be more "playing dumb" on the retailer's part rather than any sort of confusion.
easyphones05/11/2019 16:50

Surprising how much discussion there is over a simple matter.The goods …Surprising how much discussion there is over a simple matter.The goods were returned to the merchant without ever reaching the customer.The full value of the order including original shipping costs should be returned. That is all.



You said, " ...should be returned. That is all", several hours after the complainant informed you in his plead, isn't your "should be", useless? What's next is what the complainant is asking, I believe.

A reminder of the posters plead:-

"4. I have been given a voucher option for the value of the order that I'm rejecting" & "Made a dispute with amex and have only been given partial (30% refund).
Is it fair to pursue the Small Claims Court route for the remaining part?"
splender05/11/2019 19:41

You said, " ...should be returned. That is all", several hours after the …You said, " ...should be returned. That is all", several hours after the complainant informed you in his plead, isn't your "should be", useless? What's next is what the complainant is asking, I believe.A reminder of the posters plead:-"4. I have been given a voucher option for the value of the order that I'm rejecting" & "Made a dispute with amex and have only been given partial (30% refund).Is it fair to pursue the Small Claims Court route for the remaining part?"


The merchant has acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, they have acted in contravention of the law, rather than taken action not legislated for) and thus a letter before action should suffice to get them to pay up. If not, depending on the value, yes, small claims court. It would be worth finding out what sort of claim the OP made at Amex.

With respect, Mr Splender, your knowledge of the law in this case is simply off the mark and so you should refrain from posting further misleading information, as it is to the detriment of those reading this thread.
easyphones05/11/2019 19:52

The merchant has acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, …The merchant has acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, they have acted in contravention of the law, rather than taken action not legislated for) and thus a letter before action should suffice to get them to pay up. If not, depending on the value, yes, small claims court. It would be worth finding out what sort of claim the OP made at Amex.With respect, Mr Splender, your knowledge of the law in this case is simply off the mark and so you should refrain from posting further misleading information, as it is to the detriment of those reading this thread.



So, you said, "acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, they have acted in contravention of the law, rather than taken action not legislated for)"

I stand to be corrected, where is the law that states this? A link should clarify the matters. Thank you.
easyphones05/11/2019 19:52

The merchant has acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, …The merchant has acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, they have acted in contravention of the law, rather than taken action not legislated for) and thus a letter before action should suffice to get them to pay up. If not, depending on the value, yes, small claims court. It would be worth finding out what sort of claim the OP made at Amex.With respect, Mr Splender, your knowledge of the law in this case is simply off the mark and so you should refrain from posting further misleading information, as it is to the detriment of those reading this thread.



Before, you answer my question above, which you may take some time.

On a different point, language and communication, you said, "acted illegally (note, I said illegally, not unlawfully, they have acted in contravention of the law, rather than taken action not legislated for)

You have already demonstrated a serious gaffe or mistake in everyday English, let alone English Law. When a person acted illegally or unlawfully in (consumer) law, illegally and unlawfully are synonyms, laugh out loud! The Oxford English Dictionary gives one as a synonym of the other. Unlawful obviously comes from un- and law; illegal comes from Latin in- (which means "un-") and lex ("law"). In everyday English, people use the word "illegal", but in formal official writing and legal writing, the word "unlawful" is preferred.

(You have taken an LBC quote online without reflection and validation, made by James O'Brien, incorrectly, LOL. Ask yourself again, you wrote: "rather than taken action not legislated for"; James O'Brien said on radio one day, "Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed." I suspect that you paraphrased what he'd said. Ask youself again, how can you use "unlawful" to mean, rather than taken action not legislated for? LoL. )
Edited by: "splender" 5th Nov
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions

    Top Merchants