Progress update. Chargeback was applied for on day 15. I referred the bank to the events as described here, the communications transcript, and the video. Response today from bank: We have an update on your dispute with WWW.RADIOWO . Your unique reference number for this case is xxxxxxx. Update on your payment refund We just wanted to let you know that we're temporarily refunding the payment(s) that was made to WWW.RADIOWO for the amount of £1305.94 while we investigate further. This will show as a refund on your next statement. What happens next WWW.RADIOWO may give more details about the disputed payment(s). This could lead to the temporary refund(s) paid to your account being reversed. We may need to contact you again at a later date should we require any further information. If you do not hear from us by 03 October 2022, the refund will remain in your account.

Chargeback - yes, I will apply once the 14 days are up.

That's fair. I realised I hadn't been careful enough when I got a belligerent phone call, instead of either a full refund or a polite note proposing £15 or so would be deducted for replacing the power lead. But on the flip side, if I'd argued about it before returning it, they'd still be telling me I can't and probably still be claiming I broke the speaker foot, so I'd be in substantially the same position. Going back to the main issue I need outside advice on - is it a consensus that my valuation of applicable deductions in the range £0 - £15 is closer than theirs of £500?

Full list of events and communications to date: Package arrived 21st June in morning. Opened after work on 21st. Tested a bit as previously discussed. Really, really careful with the radio and it never went near a hard surface, only a wood coffee table. The only thing that's arguably 'damaged' was the tips of the power leads, which needed insulation stripping 5mm back, done in a different room nowhere near the radio. Clipped off the 5mm of bare end from the power leads to restore as close as possible. Boxed everything back up as well as I could, being very careful with the polystyrene around the radio. 22 June Sorry for any inconvenience but I have decided to return order ....... (Icom 7300) Please can you let me have return instructions. Kind regards Tom ..... What is the reason for return? With best regards, Sam Hayward Hello, It is simply a distance selling cancellation/ return. No faults with the item. Many thanks Tom That’s fine, but following distance selling the item must come back to us brand new, and unused. Anything less would face a restocking fee. With best regards, Sam Hayward Posted back Monday 27th special delivery Phone call on Thursday - Sam Hayward, barely allowed me to speak, smarmy tone as if he’d caught me out using the radio and was going to set me straight, wouldn’t even entertain possibility that I had not broken the speaker, said once it was used that was it and they would be sending it all back to me, or I could agree to a buyback at £800. Advised I did not accept this and advised him not to send it back. Video mentioned of unboxing, ‘We are really on top of our game with returns’ Said I would get advice and take further action if only refunded that amount. Dear Sam, Following your telephone call, I remind you of the requirements of the distance selling regulations*, which are that a full refund must be issued within 14 days less properly applicable deductions can be justified. It is not at Radioworld's discretion whether to offer a 'buy back'. You are not permitted to return the item to me again under the DSR. An applicable deduction can only be made if the item's value has been reduced, and this was due to its being used or tested more than might be reasonably permitted in a shop, and this has simply not happened. Inspecting unboxing and turning on the item is permitted. I did not use the speaker at all, but I did notice that the foot on it was broken on arrival so this not something I am responsible for and there is no plausible way I could have caused it. I did not consider the speaker further as I considered it an unwanted free gift and it is irrelevant to the decision to return the radio. Without prejudice to my right to claim the full purchase price, I will as a gesture of goodwill accept a deduction of £25 to reflect the inconvenience of processing the return and your outward postage cost. I would have been willing to discuss a credit or exchange for a non-HF radio but following your call this unfortunately seems inappropriate now. Please make a refund of £1280.94 within 14 days. Thank you Tom [* this was a mistake, should have said Consumer Contracts (etc) Regulations 2013] Tom, I have replied to the statements below. Also, I’m ready to send the video of the unboxing of your radio via WhatsApp. All we need you to do is to download it, and view the video. An applicable deduction can only be made…. You are correct, the item you sent back has been used and the value Reduced, and the condition is NOT SHOP NEW CONDITION. Opened up, scratches on the front panel, damaged to packaging on polystyrene inserts on the radio, and boxes have been ripped open on the SP38 speaker AND bag around the speaker was back inside the IC7300 with no care whatsoever. I did not use the speaker at all, but I did notice that the foot on it was broken on arrival… Very hard to believe when it’s missing its packaging and one of the feet are broken. Without prejudice to my right to claim the full purchase price, I will as a gesture of goodwill accept a deduction of £25…. We will allow 1 of 2 things, to purchase the equipment back from you at £800.00 or, return it to you. This equipment is BEYOND acceptable and wouldn’t bowed well if looked at as you said ‘independently’. 3rd July Dear RadioWorld Ltd, I am writing to notify cancellation of Order number .... under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Although my view is that my previous correspondence already amounted to such a cancellation, for the avoidance of any doubt, this email serves as a statement of cancellation under regulation 32(2) and 32(3) of those regulations. Yours faithfully Tom .... As discussed Tom, in the way we have received this back… you haven’t held your end on the consumer rights regs either. You cannot expected to buy, abuse and then return items without any form of questions asked. I have asked you to send me a WhatsApp message, then you can pass the video onto anyone who you like to challenge the issues here. With best regards, Sam Hayward 'Unboxing' video received on Whatsapp on Monday 4th July 6th July Tom, what is the situation with this radio. Do you want us to return it to you, or are we buying the radio back? With best regards, Sam Hayward Dear Sam, I informed you of my position on the company's liability to refund in full in my first email. I am withdrawing the option to deduct £25 and require a full refund of the contract price. You still have a further 6 days to make this payment. Please could you confirm that on original shipping: Whether you filmed any equivalent video before packing the goods, or Were these items packaged by the manufacturer but inspected by you?, or Were these items packaged direct by the manufacturer and uninspected by you? Could you also please confirm whether the company is a member of any alternative dispute resolution scheme? (For the avoidance of doubt I did not cause any damage. The speaker arrived to me with a loose piece of plastic in the box. I have not seen any evidence of any damage to the radio.) Thank you Tom [initially drafted some questions about the video but deleted for now] Tom, it was supposed to be return as new. It hasn’t been but abused. I’m still awaiting your actual answer to returning of the product, or buy back. With best regards, Sam Hayward

Yup, that's been said. I'll post the whole email exchange to date later.

Did some digging and found this photo of the arrival of my previous delivery from RW. (Not an image of this order) IMG_20220608_095915267.jpg - Google Drive DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM Didn't take it any further then, as everything was ok isnide. But their courier is bashing things around.

I asked: Please could you confirm that on original shipping: Whether you filmed any equivalent video before packing the goods, or Were these items packaged by the manufacturer but inspected by you?, or Were these items packaged direct by the manufacturer and uninspected by you? Reply today: Tom, it was supposed to be return as new. It hasn’t been but abused. I’m still awaiting your actual answer to returning of the product, or buy back.

Now being pressured again. Tom, what is the situation with this radio. Do you want us to return it to you, or are we buying the radio back? With best regards, Sam Hayward They clearly don't understand the law and think they can choose to reject the cancellation, and offer a 'buy back'. I don't really want this to escalate but he's been so unpleasant about it from the start it seems inevitable.

I am 100% certain the polystyrene in the radio's box was not damaged when I packed it. I remember being very careful it was sitting flat against the front and back of the radio and that it was quite difficult to fit it in, but when it went in it was flat against it. Not so certain about the speaker box but I don't remember it being torn like that.

No, they first called me after receiving it, which was also when he first mentioned having this video.

I mentioned it during the phone call yes, but not before.

I didn't inform them about the speaker. With hindisight an oversight but I was really focusing only on the radio itself and a bit emotional about giving it back.

Unboxing video received from them: I have thoughts, but would like to hear others' reaction without leading you. 73 - Tom

I have sent a 'for the avoidance of doubt' notice of cancellation as I am still within 14 days. My original communications very likely met the test but as I used the term 'return' instead of 'cancel' thought it best to be sure.

dx - Not sure about that, I don't recall any sign it had been opened, but couldn't say with certainty. The video does not seem to be forthcoming so far.

Yes

I just said I'd changed my mind about the radio, which was what I was thinking about and experiencing some disappointment at the lack of ability to pursue HF from the home. I should have mentioned the speaker in hindsight but just didn't really care about it enough for it to occur to me and didn't realise it was considered to have more than a trivial value. As far as I'm concerned the radio is not damaged, or marked beyond maybe a fingerprint. He said on the first call they look for anything to stop people trying to return things. Update in last few minutes: Initially he said the unboxing video was on Youtube but now apparently it has to be attached via Whatsapp and they can't get it to work.

Radioworld. Previously had a good relationship with them, so was perhaps complacent about things going well. Yes I cancelled by email the day after delivery and they acknowledged this. Boxed radio up just before emailing and never touched it again. Wish I hadn't ticked to receive the free gift, as that seems to have complicated everything. The bloke who phoned me after receiving it was quite unpleasant and seemed to be saying they massively scrutinise returns and are 'really on top of our game' to refuse them. I made a note of this and asked for further communications in writing. 73

I didn't realise it didn't come with a power supply. I have recently gone up to intermediate licence and never owned a base station before. Purchase was about 2 weeks ago, cancellation sent by email the next day. Outward courier was UPS, return Royal Mail special delivery.

Hi all, I haven't posted here for ages but have popped back as I need a bit of help. I paid £1300 for an Icom HF radio, in the knowledge I could return it if needed. At the checkpout there was an option to include a free speaker, which I accepted but didn't especially want. All received ok but the free speaker had a broken bit of cosmetic damage. It was either sent like this or was broken just by opening the box. As I didn't really want it I didn't especially mind about this at first. After 24 hours I decided to return the radio as it didn't suit my needs for an indoor installation: too much RF noise and it didnt include a power supply so was difficult to power as it needs 100W to transmit and I couldn't supply this. I had handled it very minimally. All packaging intact, all I did was turn it on and test the reception. Boxed it up fully after 24 hours and didn't touch it again. Company notified by email of cancellation, they said 'ok but it must be returned unused' [well, ok I thought, true apart from the handling allowed by the cancellation regulations]. The retailer claims that by unboxing it and turning it on it is now second hand. They claim there is a 'mark' (no detail given) but if there is, I didn't cause it and didn't notice it. They said they would send an unboxing video of the return arriving, but I haven't seen it yet. They also claim the speaker is a costly item and want to charge for it and claim it's 'unlikely' it arrived damaged. My argument is firstly that I didn't damage it, but in any case it was priced as free so cannot now be valued more than minimally. They claim the value has been reduced to £800. Advice please on the reasonableness of my handling and this valuation....

If they agreed to rearrange, then there was no failure to attend, that's all there is to it. Good reason therefore isn't a factor. Apply for a hardship payment (which will be a reduced amount) and appeal the sanction as well - to a proper tribunal, not just the DWP's own reconsideration.

The regulations are made under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which says in paragraph 10 : "An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."

Just to update this with the outcome that we did receive a refund of the money directly from the company. I don't particuarly feel that this excuses them from their conduct in wrongly taking it, but I am very grateful to Lee for his assistance.

Or to look at it another way, there are two legitimate functions of a lawyer:- 1. To give accurate and frank advice to his or her client, considering both strengths and weaknesses in the client's case, and looking for ways to rebut counter arguments. I will call this advice. 2. To present the client's case to the other side, and put it in the best possible light. This I would call representation.Giving representation is of course perfectly proper even if clearly a partisan activity. But RLP's "opinion" from Mr Mawrey is clearly not normal legal advice as in case 1, but rather an odd mixture of 1 and 2. It seems to be more like advice to the world, but with the purpose of furthering the goals of representation. I am not at all sure that barristers are supposed to do this.

RLP's web-site is becoming increasingly shrill and ridiculous, with pop-ups proclaiming how legitimate they are, giving exactly the opposite impression. It reminds me so much of private parking companies and other specualtive (in a lot of cases) invoicers like TV licensing.Their QC's advice is clearly the best possible argument that could be advanced from one side. It does not consider obvious counter-arguments (such as the very obvious problem of lack of causation). The part about being a consumer in paragraph 50 is simply wrong because he is ignoring the fact that RLP's invoices are a 'product' for the purposes of CPUTR.