A word of warning, was:- ER40 Backplate mounted chuck

I would suggest that since the price charged was not the price you confirmed (do you still have a copy of the original advert?), then you are entitled to reject the contract under the distance selling regulations on the grounds that they changed the price. and that they are required by those regulations to pay the return shipping and refund you. You need to reject the goods by snail mail or email within seven _working_ days of the day after delivery.

This isn't a change of mind, that would require you to pay the return shipping if the goods were rejected. The goods are also not customised or made to your order, so they cannot charge a re-stocking fee even if you had changed your mind. In so much as their contract contradicts this, it's against the law!

You may need to talk to the trading standards office at which ever town they shipped the items from to get some leverage.

This was a retail/private sale and not a business sale wasn't it?

PS IANAL :-)

Mark Rand RTFM

PPS:-

Mark Rand RTFM

Beats me how Chesters stay in business with their attitude to customers.

I bought a 626 mill from them a while ago and returned it for a refund.It probably worked when they imported it,but I asked for a three phase motor and they fitted one but the belt pulleys wouldn't line up.They also fitted a Newall Dro and left two lovely pyramids of cast iron dust on the ways where they'd drilled and tapped the bed.There were also several other things wrong with it that were their doing.

They didn't want to return calls either.

Allan

Spot on Mark. Always better to order without being in the shop. Your rights are much better. Even the most Euro-sceptic can thank the EU for that piece of law.

Charles

You need to be aware of the Distance Selling Regulations of the SGA. You have 7 days to change your mind regardless of any problem with the goods so act on that quickly before you lose the right. They also have to pay for return postage. Check with uk.legal or u.l.moderated if you want further info.

I'd agree with all of that. Incredibly shoddy company. I made the mistake of buying a lathe from then 3 years ago, rejected it and had hassle. Eventually had a replacement lathe sent out, and rejected that one as it was even worse than the first one.

They tried to tell me I couldn't reject it as according to their terms and conditions every driver is told to wait for 40 minutes so that delivered machines can be checked and tested, and as such, I must have accepted the item in full. Apart from that being a totally ridiculous amount of time to assemble and then verify the operation of a lathe, the sub-contract commercial carrier is going to laugh in your face if you tell him he has to wait there for 40minutes because the company you bought the machine from says so.

Warco on the other hand were a delight to deal with, and have an impeccable customer service model.

Another black mark for Chester I'm afraid. As one of their staff has read this newsgroup in the past, and at least tried to be helpful, then perhaps if you are reading this now you would care to comment?

Peter

PS, the DSRs only apply to an individual buying from a business and not a business buying from a another business. If that applies to this case then put your refusal to accept the goods in writing to them before the 7 days are up even if the goods don't get sent back, or collected, until after that. That's 7 working days btw not 7 calendar ones.

I've just had a very helpful chat with a lady at Trading Standards, going through exactly what I should do next, & asking that I report back to them, or contact them again if I don't have any joy.

Thanks

Tim

Report this message | Find messages by this author

Hi Tim,

May be the person you spoke to at Chester was having a bad week.

I am aware that few members of their team were/are still away on holiday, and the people left to cover were/are under pressure as a result. This is not an excuse, but just an observation. I would suggest you call and discuss the same with the same person later this week or early next week, and then ask to speak to someone senior if you still fail to get any joy from the person you spoke to earlier.

I am sure you will find a reasonable solution without getting the trading standards team involved.

Ketan.

| Report this message | Find messages by this author

Dear Mr Leach,

Just for your future reference, it myself whom you spoke to, my name is Anthony.

I would first like to make the apology that when you called in January there was no one available but the sales team were all working away from home over the weekend in London supporting the Model Engineering Exhibition at Alexandra Palace. Secondly I would like to apologise that no one called you back upon our return but as other traders who may visit this forum would tell you, post show is a very very busy time sorting out orders, getting back organised, re-stocking, sorting out back logs of work which has generated in the 2 or 3 day absence from the office, as well as having skeleton staff for the most part of the week after with people trying to catch up on a bit of family time after being away from home for 4 days.

Recalling our conversation earlier in the week, you advised me that you had been over charged on the collet chucks as you had seen them advertised on the back of certain publications dated from December which are now no longer valid and were not vaild when your order was placed on the 6th February. You advised me that you had been verbally quoted alternative prices but upon receiving your invoice found that you had been over charged. I explained that, as the issues of the publications were no longer valid and you had no proof of being quoted these prices I was unable to re-credit your credit/debit card. I did explain though that as a goodwill gesture, even though you could not give proof of being quoted these prices, I would arrange for a credit note to be put on to your account, as explained by my colleague previously, which you refused to accept, or I presumed that was the case after having the phone put down on me and abruptly ended the call. This is after I had been given a verbal insult which has not been mentioned in any prior post. The other option I gave was to return the products to us and we will recredit your card minus a 10% handling fee.

We are not in the business of upsetting customers, over charging people and many other accusations which are occssionally thrown our way. Within this company, we are all working people, whom all have families and mortgages and other bills who come to work every day like everyone else to try to earn a living, believe it or not, we are all honest hard working people here.

I would like to make the offer still available to you, if you wish to contact me personally then please do not hesitate to do so and I will arrange for the credit note to be raised for you. Alternatively, as you are not located a million miles away from us, if you had the time or were in the area I would like to make it known that you are most welcome to visit our showroom where I will personally speak to you, over a coffee if required.

I would hope we can come to some amicable agreement as soon as possible.

Regards

Anthony Chester UK Limited

Hi Mark,

I completely agree with you. I would just like to say what I am going to below, to make sure that some people do not read your comments and abuse the points you have raised by using them inconsiderately against ALL sellers.

Just clarifying a few points...or rathar..adding grey areas...as, although this issue seems to be genuine, unfortunately, we also see some customers abuse a product and then start quoting SOG/Distant Selling Act, Trading Standards, etc. So, if anyone is wrongfully considering to persue such an issue, they should consider that WE the traders are human too..

Agreed in principal. Factors to consider: age of advert, E&OE, can contents of conversation be proved,

Again - Grey area: Seller is not required to refund cost of return shipping if the customer does not like the product, or if the customer does not find it fit for HIS/HER purpose, provided the product is returned in the same state that it was sent, and, it is the buyers responsibility to make sure that the product comes back to the seller. If lost in transit, it is still the buyers responsibility. I would challange Trading Standards on this point. However, in our case, for U.K. sales, as a matter of reasonableness, if we agree with the customers observation of problem with quality, we agree to refund the cost of the return carriage, based on the mode of return the customer and we agree to. Each issue has to be dealt on a case by case basis, which is why Trading Standards have to be responsible too for what they say. In Tims case, presuming he is correct with his observation, we would have apoligised and refunded the difference. IN CERTAIN CASES ONLY, even when we feel - but cannot prove - that a customer has abused a product and returned it, we issue refunds, and in some of these RARE cases, we refuse to make any further supply to them. This is a difficult decision to make as we could be wrong too!

Agreed, but some - minority - of customers still try it on..

Agreed

Ahhh yes, but there are ways around it...play on words...can't say exactly what...perhaps along the lines of "handling fee"..can't remember exactly now, but I do know that there is a sentence which does comply with the law....even though we DONOT charge it.

depends - if the customer has told the seller what his purpose is then the seller must refund shipping.

provided the product is

Note the rejection under the Sale of Goods Act is *not* the same as exercising any rights to reject/return goods under the Distance Selling Regulations. SoGA always applies, DSR only applies when the sale is made at a distance.

In general the customer does not have to give any reason for rejecting goods under DSR, but must give a reason for rejecting goods under SoGA.

If the goods are rejected under the DSR then the seller may collect or retain the actual cost of return carriage, or require the customer to return the goods - but he may not charge a restocking fee or the like. He has to refund the cost of goods and forward carriage within 30 days, and cannot insist on a credit note instead.

Obn the other hand, if the goods are rejected under SoGA, eg as being not as described, or unfit for purpose, then at most it is the buyer's responsibility to ensure that the product is available for collection by the seller.

In these circumstances the buyer is under no obligation to provide return transport, and is only under a "reasonable" duty to keep the goods secure and in good condition awaiting collection, for a "reasonable" time.

Fair? I dunno, but that's the law. It doesn't seem too bad for either party.

That depends many other things, including whether SoGA or DSR (or both!) apply, and it can be tricky. SoGA usually trumps DSR if there is a conflict.

I would

Good, that's the best way to do it - everyone gets things wrong or muddled from time to time, and reasonableness keeps the customers satisfied - whether or not they are going to buy anything else from you, annoyed customers can affect your reputation.

if we agree with the

Indeed, it ain't easy.

-- Peter Fairbrother

t -

Thankyou for your response. I shall certainly contact you again directly in the hope that we can reach an agreement on this, though you do seem to be sticking to your line of 'credit note or nothing'.

I'll respond to a couple of points here,though.

First, my reason for raising the fact that I had phoned in January was mainly to show that I had not simply rung two months after the publication and expected a price advertised in December. It was no huge surprise that I didn't get my call returned, yours is certainly not the only organisation guilty of that sin . When I did get through to your office this month, my first question was whether the chuck was still available at the offer price, I was very pleased to learn that it was.

Second, I do not see how you can duck out of a verbal agreement made with one of your staff. I did not even know of the existence of the smaller 100mm diameter chuck until I spoke to him, as the advert only refers to the 125mm chuck. There is absolutely no way that I would have ordered two chucks at £39+ each.

Third, although I am generally very mild-mannered I had been angered by the turn of the conversation and the continual doubt cast on my word. Any insult I gave was extremely minor and in the heat of the moment, I apologise if it caused offence.

Tim

Dear Mr. Leech,

Firstly your apology is accepted, I can understand your frustration and I am not offended by any comment as I am a man and these things happen, it is just not so greatly appreciated when you are working.

In any case, when convenient if you contact me directly, ask for myself and we will discuss the matter and I am sure we can come to a suitable agreement for both parties.

Please could you also note for future reference and for the benefit of all parties involved, could you take a name of the person whom you may speak to so we can refer back to this person should any problem arise as this is a busy sales office and we have several staff whom answer telephone calls.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Regards

Anthony Chester UK

Tim, If you get this sorted without a trip up to Chester can I have the cup of coffee offered ??

John S.

You have two options in law - return the chucks under the DSR, if you are a private individual. You do not have to give any reason for this, and whether your word is in doubt or not is irrelevant. The seller then has to refund the price of the goods and forward carriage within 30 days, and cannot charge a restocking fee or insist on a credit note. That's the law. You will probably have to arrange and pay for return carriage though.

Your second option is to reject the goods under the Sale of Goods Act. You have to give a reason for this, but in this case it's pretty obvious that the contract was flawed, as the price charged was not the price quoted. The value of your word does come into this, but it does not seem reasonable to doubt your word, under the circumstances.

If you take the latter route, which seems reasonable to me, then you do not have to pay return carriage charges, just ensure that the goods are reasonably available for collection, at reasonable times, for a reasonable period.

That's the law. It is probably reasonable for the seller to ask that you return the goods, at his expense, but you don't have to do it.

-- Peter Fairbrother

forget to mention, in the circumstances you probably do not have a right to buy the chucks at the lower price, you can only have the right to return them.

-- Peter

There's no reason in law why the purchaser can't keep the chucks and sue for the amount he has been overcharged by. A valid contract has been established and whether it was verbal or not matters not a jot. All that affects is the evidence that the parties could put before a court and in this case a judge would have to decide on balance of probabilities who was telling the truth. If the seller's employee who entered into the contract made a mistake about the current price that's his fault but the purchaser is entitled to take it that the employee who is quoting prices to him is acting within his authority i.e intra vires rather than ultra vires.