Hello.
I received an order that was paid for by paypal. I sent the order in January
and now I have received it back because it has not been picked up. The customer
wants me to give him back what he paid for. He doesn't tell me why he didn't
pick it up. I told him I'll send it again if he pays the postage. But he
wants his money back. What can I do ? Thanks.
Hello.
I received an order that was paid for by paypal. I sent the order in January
and now I have received it back because it has not been picked up. The customer
wants me to give him back what he paid for. He doesn't tell me why he didn't
pick it up. I told him I'll send it again if he pays the postage. But he
wants his money back. What can I do ? Thanks.
Hello.
I received an order that was paid for by paypal. I sent the order in January
and now I have received it back because it has not been picked up. The customer
wants me to give him back what he paid for. He doesn't tell me why he didn't
pick it up. I told him I'll send it again if he pays the postage. But he
wants his money back. What can I do ? Thanks.
Hi,
What’s the problem exactly? Just refund them.
If you don’t have any provision in your terms about returns (like a restocking
fee…), then you need to refund the total. (Provided the buyer is in EU… but
then, differentiating buyers is a bit petty.)
[…]
if you have the order in hand & buyer does not want to pay the postage to reship
it to them, refund the purchase price of the order, but not the shipping fees..
Unless specified in the store’s terms pror to the order, that’s illegal under
EU consumer laws.
[…]
if you have the order in hand & buyer does not want to pay the postage to reship
it to them, refund the purchase price of the order, but not the shipping fees..
Unless specified in the store’s terms pror to the order, that’s illegal under
EU consumer laws.
For a shop, but OP doesn't seem to be a registered pro; I didn't
check carefully and may be wrong.
[…]
For a shop, but OP doesn't seem to be a registered pro; I didn't
check carefully and may be wrong.
What registration? They could be a business without being VAT-registered.
Anyway:
1. 812 orders in 3½ years is way enough to qualify as a professional.
2. They are selling New items. That means they buy with the purpose of resaling,
that makes them professionals.
3. There’s no obvious difference on BL between a business and a hobbyist selling
their own collection. Buyers can’t know, therefore it must be assumed they are
professionals.
From EU consumer protection laws (extracts)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021XC1229%2804%29
First, the consumer must NOT be buying for trading, selling
Is it the case here?
According to Article 2(1), ‘consumer’ is any natural person who, in contracts
covered by the Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his/her trade,
business, craft or profession. It follows from that provision that two cumulative
conditions must be satisfied in order for a person to fall within the scope of
that concept, namely that: (i) the person is a natural person, and (ii) the persons
acts for non-professional purposes.
Furthermore, the Court held that the concept of ‘consumer’ refers to an individual
not engaged in commercial or trade activities.
Second, to be protected, ther other party must be a trader:
Classification as a ‘trader’ requires a case-by-case assessment of the, taking
into account the following indicative criteria:
* whether the sale was carried out in an organised manner;
* whether that sale was intended to generate profit;
* whether the seller had technical information and expertise relating to the
products which they offered for sale which the consumer did not necessarily have,
with the result that the seller was placed in a more advantageous position than
the consumer;
* whether the seller had a legal status which enabled them to engage in commercial
activities;
* to what extent the sale was connected to the seller’s commercial or professional
activity;
* whether the seller was subject to VAT;
* whether the seller, acting on behalf of a particular trader or on his/her own
behalf or through another person acting in his/her name and on his/her behalf,
received remuneration or an incentive;
* whether the seller purchased new or second-hand goods in order to resell them,
thus making that a regular, frequent and/or simultaneous activity in comparison
with their usual commercial or business activity;
* whether the goods for sale were all of the same type or of the same value;
* whether the offer was concentrated on a small number of goods.
And also:
In this respect, Directive (EU) 2019/2161 amended the CRD, introducing a requirement
for the providers of online marketplaces to inform the consumer whether the third
party supplier is acting as a ‘trader’ or ‘non-trader’ (peer-consumer), on the
basis of a declaration by the third party supplier to the provider of the online
marketplace. The information requirements for online marketplaces are addressed
in section 3.4.2.
In short, it's not (about the info we have) 100% sure this is the case for
consumer protection here; sorry about the horse beaten again.
While I 100% agree this person should simply full refund and move on
From EU consumer protection laws (extracts)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021XC1229%2804%29
One thing is sure: it makes people read
[…]
In short, it's not (about the info we have) 100% sure this is the case for
consumer protection here; sorry about the horse beaten again.
And part of the fault is on BL….
(Note that I think I’ve seen suggestions to clearly differentiate pro/not-pro
sellers accounts (“traders”/“consumers”) before 2019. EU lawmakers copied us!
On the other hand, it’s only on the say-so of the members… so “I’m not a pro,
I only make 20 sales a week!”)
But there’s, in general and in this case, way better odds the seller is a trader
and the buyer a consumer than the other way around
While I 100% agree this person should simply full refund and move on
Phew! That’s fortunate. Imagine the thread if you didn’t!
[…]
i am not 100% fluent with EU rules.. but from what i gather from the seller's
post.. the buyer did not inform them of wanting to cancel the order within the
14-day Cooling-Off Period...
It’s not a “I received, I changed my mind, I return without warning” situation,
or even a “it was presented to me and I refused,” it’s a “I didn’t pick it up”
/ “I didn’t receive it” (we don’t know which exactly).
Now that the package has made its way back to the seller, the buyer says “forget
it.”
Also, you need to explicit the procedure to cancel in your terms. Otherwise,
the “market practices” prevail. And then you can blame most professionals whose
procedure is to refuse the package and/or not pick it up.
[…]
info needed is: was the buyer presented with a delivery notice from the shipping
company their order has arrived & is ready for pick-up , & they refused to pick
it up. […]
No. The very first information that is needed is: was there anything in the
seller’s terms?
There’s nothing there. That’s a fault of the seller. You can’t blame the buyer
for the seller’s (and BrickLink’s) lack of information.
[…]
from what i gather from the EU Rules, the buyer MUST inform the seller of cancellation
within 14 days of purchase, the items were not faulty, thus the buyer has no
legal avenue to pursue.
We don’t know what happened. The buyer may have been waiting for the package
all along (not having been presented with the package, not having been made aware
it was available for pick up) and, now that it arrived back to the seller, they
are saying “forget it” = I would want to cancel.
That means they are under the 14 days because they never received anything (the
delay runs from the moment the buyer takes possession: no possession, no delay),
and they are communicating with the seller now.
One argument for this situation is that the buyer is only asking for their money
now. They didn’t ask for a refund before the seller asked them.
the lack of seller terms do not affect the default EU rules about returning non-faulty
items.
the buyer has no legal rights to return a purchase that is not faulty.
that's what the rule states.
right..?
1. It was not “returned,” it was “not picked up.”
2. The rules first state that the seller must provide information, otherwise
defaults apply and, among them, the “market practices.” Market practices is
that refusing / not picking up the package is enough to signify a cancellation.
2. The rules first state that the seller must provide information, otherwise
defaults apply and, among them, the “market practices.” Market practices is
that refusing / not picking up the package is enough to signify a cancellation.
hence an hour ago i wrote this " info needed is: was the buyer presented
with a delivery notice from the shipping company their order has arrived & is
ready for pick-up , & they refused to pick it up."
you said "No, that doesn't mnatter the first info needed was seller terms"
(1) and (2) are two independant objections.
[…]
if not picking up a delivered order entails the seller must eat the postage cost
paid to deliver the item to the buyer... hmmm.. good luck EU sellers.. 10 friends
could get together & drive your business into the ground by not picking up packages
& forcing you to shell out a few hundred Euro's in shipping fees.
First, the EU sellers just need to be clear about what is refunded and what procedures
to follow.
Second, that’s preposterous.
Portugal
Bulgaria, Sofia City
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
USA, Arkansas
United Kingdom, England
Belgium, Brussels