"Distance Selling"

[harryc]

There are new regulations for distance selling (etämyynti) as of 13 June.

Finnish newspapers have pointed out more the weakening nature of the changes for the consumer - eg consumer having to pay for the return

But these references under 'distance selling' don't seem to indicate any info re returns (at least I didn't notice)


http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... d2a5fbfc47

also this - interesting: NOT BINDING

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-ma ... nce_en.pdf

------------------

One point - seemingly one cannot just leave a postiennakko package at the PO - ie - not bother to pick it up.

Supposedly - according to newspaper articles in Finland one is obliged to pay the cost of return. Just what are going to be the logistics of that and/or the methods of enforcement?

The whole thing seems to me tobe awkward and loaded with new problems - the previous system was not broken - what are they trying to fix?

[Upphew]

There are new regulations for distance selling (etämyynti) as of 13 June.

Finnish newspapers have pointed out more the weakening nature of the changes for the consumer - eg consumer having to pay for the return

But these references under 'distance selling' don't seem to indicate any info re returns (at least I didn't notice)


http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... d2a5fbfc47

also this - interesting: NOT BINDING

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-ma ... nce_en.pdf

------------------

One point - seemingly one cannot just leave a postiennakko package at the PO - ie - not bother to pick it up.

Supposedly - according to newspaper articles in Finland one is obliged to pay the cost of return. Just what are going to be the logistics of that and/or the methods of enforcement?

The whole thing seems to me tobe awkward and loaded with new problems - the previous system was not broken - what are they trying to fix?

They try to fix things so that it is the same everywhere in EU. So blame Brussels, again. And return postage? Intrum Justitia.

[Rosamunda]

Finnish companies (like Hobby Hall etc) were at an unfair disadvantage compared to eg Amazon, because they had to fund the cost of return postage. At the end of the day it should make Finnish online sales more competitive with other countries (but don't hold your breath).

[riku2]

Supposedly - according to newspaper articles in Finland one is obliged to pay the cost of return. Just what are going to be the logistics of that and/or the methods of enforcement?

your second link was a guidance document about the directive instead of the directive itself. guidance document = writes a bit more about the directive but the guidance document itself is not the directive.

from the directive:

>>The consumer shall only bear the direct cost of returning the goods unless the trader has agreed to bear them or the trader failed to inform the consumer that the consumer has to bear them.<<

ie The shop can offer to pay the return cost or IF they specify in the sales terms that the customer pays, then the customer has to pay. There is nothing about EVERYONE having to pay for returns. Now the shop can decide the policy. Customers are free to shop elsewhere if they don't like this (eg at a shop that does offer free returns).

It sounds like some newspaper reporters didn't understand the directive (or finnish version is not translated as well as the english one and they didn't/couldn't read the english version

One point - seemingly one cannot just leave a postiennakko package at the PO - ie - not bother to pick it up.

Why not? if the package is at the post office then the consumer has not taken delivery of it ("physical possession" as in the directive). The package then sits at the post office uncollected and as mentioned in the directive

>>the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control of the goods to the consumer
...
Where the trader has failed to fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods at the time agreed upon with the consumer....the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract
Upon termination of the contract, the trader shall, without undue delay, reimburse all sums paid under the contract<<

The directive specifically mentions that possession of the goods by the carrier (eg post office) does not mean the consumer has possession of them. so if you don't collect from the post office the contract can be terminated by you.

[harryc]

There is nothing about EVERYONE having to pay for returns.

I never meant it in that way (EVERYONE) - the seller can offer to even give the stuff away for free if they want.

Overall - I somehow think that we're going to end up with a can of worms.

As for Intrium Justitia getting involved to collect 10€ - or even less - of postage - is hardly going to be an efficient system - after all, these 'distance sellers' are also trying to do volume business with minimum costs - and those costs include fuss and bother and the TIME of some employee.

(Yes - noticed the 'guidance' aspect - has anyone a reference to the actual directive outlining the return conditions and obligations?)

There really is nothing wrong with Brussels trying to make uniform regulations - but sometimes they open up Pandora's Box.

[riku2]

has anyone a reference to the actual directive outlining the return conditions and obligations?

the guidance document had the link http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 32011L0083

[harryc]

Yes - saw that - but it's dated 2011! Aren't these changes (eg re return charges) in the 'amended' directive ? That's the text I'd like to see - with all the details of the obligations of the buyer to pay for the return, etc.

Also shouldn't the extended rights from the links I first gave in OP - be written somewhere 'officially?'

[riku2]

Yes - saw that - but it's dated 2011! Aren't these changes (eg re return charges) in the 'amended' directive ? That's the text I'd like to see - with all the details of the obligations of the buyer to pay for the return, etc. '

The first link you posted even described what directive the regulation gives effect to. The year is mentioned and it's 2011. The 2011 directive explains how sellers may now charge for returns (if they want).

>>The Regulations give effect to Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Consumer Rights<<

Is the problem that something written in 2011 isn't enforced as law until 2014? something written in 2011 has just become law.

Also shouldn't the extended rights from the links I first gave in OP - be written somewhere 'officially?

They are in the 2011 directive. Perhaps you think that each new law must include a summary of how it differs to the old law? This is not needed. The law is written, it's up to others to compare the new/old and write some story or summary of what has changed.

eg the lexicology.com link says the possibility to cancel the contract is increased from 7 -> 14 days.

The directive: >>the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract, without giving any reason, and without incurring any costs other than those provided for in Article 13(2) and Article 14<<

lexicology "surcharges for use of a credit card"
directive >>Member States shall prohibit traders from charging consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of such means

lexicology "pre-ticked options"
directive >>Before the consumer is bound by the contract or offer, the trader shall seek the express consent of the consumer to any extra payment in addition to the remuneration agreed upon for the trader’s main contractual obligation. If the trader has not obtained the consumer’s express consent but has inferred it by using default options which the consumer is required to reject in order to avoid the additional payment, the consumer shall be entitled to reimbursement of this payment

[harryc]

Is the problem that something written in 2011 isn't enforced as law until 2014?

I believe that's the key to the 'problem' - the papers had articles about 'changes' - I talked with some people running companies doing net sales the other day - and they were rather confused and had been trying to reach Kuluttajavirasto - but lines tied up.

I too - was assuming we were already operating according to an 'earlier' EU directive - but now see that directive was giving the individual states to come up with conforming legislation.

The newspapers didn't help - as even their headlines (eg Helsingin Uutiset) referred to 'free return policies' continuing were (misleading as the article later talked of 'voluntary' free returns by Stockmann.

In any case, I do believe that the situation is a bit of a mess - and the mechanisms for getting consumers to pay for returns is going to be problematic - with or without the commercial mafia like Intrium Justitia. It can well be that people will now shy away from such orders - which may not be a bad thing as they return to the B&M model.

[rinso]

Nobody mentioned it, but one of the problems with "free returns" was that people ordered several items, chose the ones they liked and returned the rest.

[Upphew]

Nobody mentioned it, but one of the problems with "free returns" was that people ordered several items, chose the ones they liked and returned the rest.

I thought eg. H&M encourages that. Order few sizes try them on, keep the one that fits and return the rest.

I too - was assuming we were already operating according to an 'earlier' EU directive - but now see that directive was giving the individual states to come up with conforming legislation.

Isn't that the way directives work? First comes directive, then the national legislation is changed to conform to that. And if the national legislation isn't changed, then there will be fines. Like we are having in September.

In any case, I do believe that the situation is a bit of a mess - and the mechanisms for getting consumers to pay for returns is going to be problematic - with or without the commercial mafia like Intrium Justitia. It can well be that people will now shy away from such orders - which may not be a bad thing as they return to the B&M model.

Consumers won't return to brick and mortar after they have tasted the selection that is available online. Most Finns that have ordered from abroad know that returns aren't free.

[CH]

Nobody mentioned it, but one of the problems with "free returns" was that people ordered several items, chose the ones they liked and returned the rest.

I thought eg. H&M encourages that. Order few sizes try them on, keep the one that fits and return the rest.

Yes, and for them it apparently is cost benefitial. But for small sellers it makes it unprofitable and potentially really expensive (at least according to the news segment that I saw some months back, where they interviewed a small business owner that was complaining about customers who ordered one of every color of some product and returned back all but one).

[riku2]

Isn't that the way directives work? First comes directive, then the national legislation is changed to conform to that. And if the national legislation isn't changed, then there will be fines. Like we are having in September.

But in this case there is both a directive and a regulation. I'm not sure why there are both (the regulation in this case implements the directive).

directive: member states have to pass their own laws to implement what's written in the directive

regulation: member states don't have to do anything, the content of the regulation becomes law without the member state doing anything

[rinso]

Nobody mentioned it, but one of the problems with "free returns" was that people ordered several items, chose the ones they liked and returned the rest.

I thought eg. H&M encourages that. Order few sizes try them on, keep the one that fits and return the rest.

If this would become a standard practice, all the on-line prices would have to be increased whether you would use this tactic or not. (not in the customers interest) And it would put an unnecessary strain on the transportation and delivery systems. (not ecological friendly)
By putting the costs to the customer, they can decide themselves whether or not they want to pay for extra service/comfort.