View Single Post
Old 11-02-2009, 08:11 AM   #10
Bald Eagle
Connoisseur
Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bald Eagle ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Bald Eagle's Avatar
 
Posts: 93
Karma: 1228255
Join Date: May 2009
Device: Aura H2O, Aura One, Libra Colour
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynevans View Post
I was initially sceptical, but it looks to me as if they have a point this time. See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights...e_table_en.pdf, particularly the bottom of pg 8. (Yes, the doc's subject to change, but at the moment, this is in it...)

"On the one hand, consumer- protection will decrease in all Member States (current directive obliges the trader to reimburse the consumer as soon as possible and always within 30 days). On the other hand, this new rule protects traders against dishonest consumers, which do not intend to return the product."

My emphasis - Frankly, I don't actually consider more protection for retailers as being a good enough reason to reduce the consumer protection.
It says there "If the consumer withdraws, the proposal introduces a right for traders to withhold reimbursement until receiving the goods or getting evidence from the consumer of having sent the goods back."

So this would apply only if the consumer claims to have sent back the product but cannot prove it (or didn't send it at all).
Bald Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote