EU to ban all shop refunds.

Run_to_da_hills

I find this hard to believe that EU bureaucrats want to end the right of shoppers to get their money back for shoddy goods.

Ministers would be powerless to this change this "harmonization" if it is backed by the majority of MEPs.

http://express.co.uk/posts/view/137380/EU-to-ban-all-shop-refunds

Dozen Wicked Words

I will wait and see, the Express is even more rabidly anti-Europe than the Mail is. Could be true but they only ever attack a story one way, the Euro-skeptic way.

I doubt refunds are going away any time soon.

Dinner

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I find this hard to believe that EU bureaucrats want to end the right of shoppers to get their money back for shoddy goods.

Ministers would be powerless to this change this "harmonization" if it is backed by the majority of MEPs.

http://express.co.uk/posts/view/137380/EU-to-ban-all-shop-refunds

Have you done any research on this (such as reading the directive) or did you just see the headline in the Express, foam at the mouth and rush to boards?

I ask because I had a search around, and reading about what I assume is the same directive the aim is actually the opposite of what you and the express believe (The link is to the citizens summary of the directive). The purpose of it is to allow retailers who are selling in multiple member states to work from 1 legal basis and 1 set of requirements rather then having potentially 27 different laws to comply with. One of the aims is to give the consumer the right to have a faulty good replaced or get their money back. I guess the Big Bad EU isn't so bad.

Mr. Incognito

Once again run to the hills comes posting a conspiracy theory that is flat out wrong.

Here's the breakdown:

What is proposed?
The Directive will create common rules for consumers, as the Member States will no longer
be able to impose additional requirements. Traders will be able to work within a single legal
framework and consumers will be able to rely on same level of protection across the EU.
According to the proposal:
o Before the conclusion of the contract, the trader should give consumers key information
(e.g. the price should be all inclusive with no extra costs).
o When the consumer buys online or during a visit of a trader at his home, he has a cooling-
off period of 14 calendar days. During this period, he may cancel the order, return the
goods and get his money back.
o Certain contract terms drafted by traders and agreed by consumers upon signature or
ticking a box on the trader's webpage are prohibited upfront across the EU. Others will be
assessed on a case-by-case basis,.
o The consumer is protected against the risk of loss or damage to transported goods until he
actually receives them.
o If a good is defective, the consumer has the right to have it replaced or repaired within two
years from the purchase. If that is not possible the consumer should get his money back.

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/cons_rights_citizen_summary_en.pdf

Dinner

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Here's the breakdown:

If a good is defective, the consumer has the right to have it replaced or repaired within two
years from the purchase. If that is not possible the consumer should get his money back.

And if I remember correctly it was the EU who set the 2 year time frame in which consumers had the right to have their faulty goods repaired or replaced, which is a very generous length of time.

Klingon Hamlet

Dinner wrote: »

One of the aims is to give the consumer the right to have a faulty good replaced or get their money back. I guess the Big Bad EU isn't so bad.

I'm not so sure it's that simple. I've worked in retail and when a customer returned a faulty item to us within 28 days of purchase, we could replace it on the spot or refund the cost. If a customer returned the item within the year of purchase, we would first go for repair, and only if the repair time exceeded an additional 28 days, then we would offer a replacement or refund.

In the first instance, the customer had the choice of a refund.

In the directive:

If a good is defective, the consumer has the right to have it replaced or repaired within two years from the purchase. If that is not possible the consumer should get his money back.

It's good that the warranty now lasts 2 years (currently most Irish-bought products are covered for only one year). The bad: refund is only offered if repair/replacement is not possible. So it's an odd mix.

Dinner

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

So it's an odd mix.

I'd imagine that that's to prevent the shop from being taken advantage of. Otherwise I could buy a telly, use it for a year and a half until it 'breaks' and get a refund to help pay for a newer and better one. It's a compromise between protecting the consumer and protecting the retailer. And although a bit odd, I think it works.

Del2005

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I'm not so sure it's that simple. I've worked in retail and when a customer returned a faulty item to us within 28 days of purchase, we could replace it on the spot or refund the cost. If a customer returned the item within the year of purchase, we would first go for repair, and only if the repair time exceeded an additional 28 days, then we would offer a replacement or refund.

In the first instance, the customer had the choice of a refund.

In the directive:

If a good is defective, the consumer has the right to have it replaced or repaired within two years from the purchase. If that is not possible the consumer should get his money back.

It's good that the warranty now lasts 2 years (currently most Irish-bought products are covered for only one year). The bad: refund is only offered if repair/replacement is not possible. So it's an odd mix.

Do we not have a longer warranty then the EU is giving? I thought it was 6-7 years.

daviddwyer

"repaired within two years" :D
..... carphone warehose must take that directive seriously

Mr. Incognito

think ya read that wrong mate - they don't have two years to replace it

your right of repair lasts two years

Elessar

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I'm not so sure it's that simple. I've worked in retail and when a customer returned a faulty item to us within 28 days of purchase, we could replace it on the spot or refund the cost. If a customer returned the item within the year of purchase, we would first go for repair, and only if the repair time exceeded an additional 28 days, then we would offer a replacement or refund.

In the first instance, the customer had the choice of a refund.

In the directive:

If a good is defective, the consumer has the right to have it replaced or repaired within two years from the purchase. If that is not possible the consumer should get his money back.

It's good that the warranty now lasts 2 years (currently most Irish-bought products are covered for only one year). The bad: refund is only offered if repair/replacement is not possible. So it's an odd mix.

Irish bought products are not covered for only one year. There is no specified time limit. If you have a reasonable expectation for a product to last a certain length of time without breaking down, you are entitled have it repaired replaced or the money refunded by the retailer. It can be handled through the courts. The small claims court for purchases under 2k.

I know quite a few people who have had items like laptops repaired or replaced years after their warranty ended because it was deemed they had a reasonable expectation for them to last longer than they did.

Warranties are technically meaningless in this country, you are already covered by law.

Cabaal

bloody hell people read the complete rag that is the express?

what the feck!!?!

Worst of all people are dumb enough to believe the rubbish they come up with, amazing really

Sponge Bob

You'll find all kinds of pornography and lurid excess
But you'll never see a nipple in the daily express .

John Cooper Clarke c 1975

mcaul

If the daily express journalist had even an iota of intelligience and was able to read the full text of the directive (probaly not possible as there were too many 2 sylable words in the text) the headline would have read "EU grants additional Consumer rights"

But that wouldn't read well in an anti eu paper!

seamus

Daily Express in anti-EU shocker!

axer

I actually think this is a disgrace that they would try and limit consumer rights to two years.

I know a person that spent about 800 euro EDIT: punts back in the day for a large CRT TV. The tube went after 2.5 years and I told him to demand they fix it. After giving him law to quote they fixed the problem.

There is no way that consumer rights should be limited to 2 years - they should be only limited by the statute of limitations. This will probably affect Irish (and British) people worst since we have strong consumer law.

Euro_Kraut

mcaul wrote: »

If the daily express journalist had even an iota of intelligience and was able to read the full text of the directive (probaly not possible as there were too many 2 sylable words in the text) the headline would have read "EU grants additional Consumer rights"

Don't for a minute assume lack of intelligence is behind this. The journalist deliberately decided to mislead his readers in order to further a political agenda.

Run_to_da_hills and others not doubt bought into their dishonesty. I really think the Press Council should investigate this type of in accurate journalism. Its debases public discourse.

jor el

axer wrote: »

There is no way that consumer rights should be limited to 2 years - they should be only limited by the statute of limitations. This will probably affect Irish (and British) people worst since we have strong consumer law.

It's my understanding that EU law only supersedes Irish (or any member nation law) in cases where the EU law offers something more. In terms of consumer rights, Ireland and Britain already afford more than 2 years guarantee to consumers, which is why the new 2 year guarantee term introduced by the EU does not apply to either of these countries. I don't believe anything is being limited by this.

EU laws do supersede member nation's laws, but they don't negate or remove the protection afforded by that members nation's law's.

It's irrational and unfounded sensationalism, nothing less than you'd expect from papers like the Express or Mail.

Newaglish

axer wrote: »

There is no way that consumer rights should be limited to 2 years - they should be only limited by the statute of limitations. This will probably affect Irish (and British) people worst since we have strong consumer law.

As far as I understand it, it's a minimum, not a limit.

axer

jor el wrote: »

It's my understanding that EU law only supersedes Irish (or any member nation law) in cases where the EU law offers something more. In terms of consumer rights, Ireland and Britain already afford more than 2 years guarantee to consumers, which is why the new 2 year guarantee term introduced by the EU does not apply to either of these countries. I don't believe anything is being limited by this.

EU laws do supersede member nation's laws, but they don't negate or remove the protection afforded by that members nation's law's.

It's irrational and unfounded sensationalism, nothing less than you'd expect from papers like the Express or Mail.

The Directive will create common rules for consumers, as the Member States will no longer be able to impose additional requirements.

Then why does it say the above?

jor el

axer wrote: »

Then why does it say the above?

Looks like they're trying something new. It says that the member states will be asked to revise their own laws, which is will get around the member states applying additional protection while not forcing EU law to revoke the member states law.

That's a bit sneaky.

axer

jor el wrote: »

That's a bit sneaky.

and is worrying for the Irish and British consumer. Its just plain wrong to limit people's rights to 2 years even when they have spent maybe up to 2k.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Yet again Run to Da Hills posts an off the wall link to a British newspaper without following the blasted thing through. Life is just too short for this type of nonsense.:rolleyes: