One in four web merchants do not know web shopping laws Most internet shoppers do not know about their right to cancel and 28 per cent of UK-based online traders are not aware or only slightly aware of the laws applying to internet shopping, according to a report (pdf) published by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) yesterday. While 56 per cent of internet shoppers surveyed did not …
"We did, however, identify a number of areas where they may need to be revised to take account of how internet shopping is evolving. We have brought these to the attention of the European Commission, who are currently reviewing how they might need to be improved."
It's the UK, so I bet it will be some kind of penalty attached to some kind of cross reporting requirement and cross border penalty.
UK oozes its slime across Europe.
The cross border reporting is silly, 27 countries each wanting information in their own language!
Up to 27 Vat returns? Even when there is less than 100k in sales, you still face 27 requests for proof of low sales in countless different languages.
THE CROSS BORDER PAPERWORK IS TOO MUCH!
Most of eCommerce is done by Amazon and the larger companies, the 20000 EU small eTailers do a few hundred euros each a year and will not survive to grow bigger unless the cross border paperwork burden is reduced.
The penalty sales tax rules are a problem too. For example the UK has a rule that you cannot zero rate the VAT on exported goods out of the EU unless you can prove the goods left the EU. They suggest an expensive recorded shipping method like Datapost. This jacks the price of the exported goods up to the point where they don't sell. These rules need to be relaxed. The invoice details should be enough!
Then there's the 27 different legal regimes. Each country is trying to make their law apply to the other 26. So any company that sells across border is facing 27 different sets of laws to comply with and 27 different ways to face penalties.
The funniest one I've seen so far was the Italian company whose only client is the UK customs and excise eCommerce investigation department!
Quit it! A company in Italy is not a company in the UK, the laws of the UK do not apply to Italy. Next they'll be saying eCommerce funds terrorism and we need to give DNA samples before we sell a toner cartridge to the UK.
LESS BUREAUCRACY PLEASE!
Nowhere is it more apparent that people don't understand online selling laws than on ebay UK.
Trading Standards sets down rules at http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/bglitem.cgi?file=badv649-1111.txt and one of them is that business sellers must put their full name and address details either on their listing or on their ME page, but how many of them do? At a quick glance, the answer is almost none of them.
Moreover, by law anybody who buys to sell (whether they do it occasionally or full time) is legally running a BUSINESS but most of them misrepresent themselves as private individuals.
As if that's bad enough, many of them unlawfully claim not to be responsible for loss or damage in the post or try to make buyers pay the cost of returning defective goods. And finally, having bought from a supposedly UK seller, the goods mysteriously arrive from China so there's unexpected duty and vat to pay on them.
It's time Trading Standards pulled up a sample of these listings, did some test purchases and followed them up with some prosecutions.
The OFT and its various global counterparts could also do with educating web merchants and marketeers about differing spam laws that are in force in various countries. Legitimate UCEs in some countries are not in others. How many marketeers are actually aware of this when they carry out global email-shots?
"more than half wrongly thought that they could withhold the cost of outward delivery when refunding shoppers"
"Is this true? I've never heard of anyone refunding the postage when you return the goods under the distance selling regs? Or is this in specific circumstances".
Yes, it's true, and no, there are no special circumstances.
The regulations state "On the cancellation of a contract ... the supplier shall reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the consumer under *or in relation to* the contract ..." (my emphasis). This means that outward postage, being related to the transaction, cannot be withheld by the supplier. On the other hand, the supplier is able to charge "a reasonable amount" for return postage, and they can also charge a "restocking fee" as long as it is mentioned in the small print when the customer buys.
You buy your flights online for you and some friends; you realise that you've mistakenly used the wrong surname on one ticket; you want to correct it.
Some airlines will allow a change, some won't (dependent on ticket type) - could you use distance-selling rules to cancel the ticket and start over again, rather than have to buy another ticket?
Also if the goods are faulty, not fit for purpose, not as described or any of the other failings allowed for in the Sale of Goods Act then the vendor must also arrange collection at his expense or refund the cost of returning the goods if the customer arranges the return.
The amount of sellers, particularly on eBay trying to shirk their legal responsibilities is alarming and what is more worrying is the lack of policing by Trading Standards. Why? Well Trading Standards is funded by and is a department of the local councils. And as they only enforce the law in respect of vendor IN THEIR AREA then they will take no action if they don't know where the vendor is, as they have limited resources that means they struggle as it is.
Perhaps we need a NATIONAL enforcement squad for this type of work.
"On the other hand, the supplier is able to charge "a reasonable amount" for return postage, and they can also charge a "restocking fee" as long as it is mentioned in the small print when the customer buys."
They can charge a reasonable amount for return postage if they stipulate this in the required written information but cannot charge an administration or restocking charge.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf paragraph 3.55
"Perhaps we need a NATIONAL enforcement squad for this type of work."
Yes, we do. First task would be to instruct ebay to discontinue the listings of all sellers who appear to be running a business but don't have their full name and address on the listing. It would only need a few high profile prosecutions to stamp this out.
Next, insist that ebay introduces tough rules for sellers of defective goods -- the law says the seller must meet ALL the buyer's costs, so why does trading standards and the FSA allow paypal to instruct the buyer to return defective goods at their own expense?
Finally, I'd suggest introducing some form of compulsory insurance through which sellers must guarantee fulfillment of buyers legal rights even if the seller goes out of business before the problem comes to light. This would effectively put the onus on the insurance company to positively verify the identity and creditworthiness of the seller before granting insurance, in order to minimise their own risk, as well us understanding their legal obligations before they start trading.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
