Short answer = No. Unfortunately the costs involved, although not insignificant, are disproportionatly low in comparison to the cost of taking legal action, and the time & effort that would entail. Even if this ended up in a worse case scenario situation (unable to recover any monies paid, and still no useable part, and no other supplier so machine scrapped) it still probably won't be cost effective to pay what it would take to have the Law upheld. I have another case going back to July 2011. New battery ordered for my pda. Received promptly but did not work. Took 3 months to get a replacement. That too did not work. Was finally sent a PPE to return them, but postage was inadequate so had to pay the full return price myself. (Incredibly Post Office cannot credit against PPE issued by Royal Mail because they're two different companies). Having spent out for the battery, and delivery, and return costs, I can't get a further response from the company. The hard fact seems to be that OK we do have Laws, but it's expensive to engage the legal profession to help have the law enforced. This makes justice only available to the rich, and only worthwhile if the sums involved justify the cost. I'm sure there's lots of dodgy companies making a living out of this. In fact the problem is so rife, and accepted as 'the norm' its generated a new style of entertainment in the form of TV shows such as Rip-Off Britain and Rouge Traders etc.

Folks, Acceptance for return is not in question. I know I have the right to return it, at my own expense if there's no problem, and I've simply changed my mind and don't want the part.....but there is a problem with it...it doesn't fit. My statutory rights require the part to be fit for purpose, and the supplier sees replacement as a new order with a repeat delivery charge, and return at my own expense. I correctly specified the machine model I needed it for, and the description. I gave a potential part number only as an aid to the supplier to help him locate it in spares data I cannot get access to, and made sure he knew I cannot verify correctness. Clearly that does NOT mean I've ordered that particular part number, but most of the responses here seem to think it does. So lets suppose all I had was the model number and part description (which would be the normal situation), and gave this to the supplier. Lets suppose ubeknown to me there are say 5 different non-interchangeable variants for this part on this model. Would this give the supplier the right to pick any one HE chooses to suit HIMSELF, such as whichever is most profitable, or whichever is in stock, etc? Would he then be right to claim he's sent me 'a' (any) part for the given model & description, or can I expect him to advise me before acquiring it that there's 5 possible variants and he needs more info to identify the particular one I need? If he is allowed to provide any of the 5 rather than the correct one, then he's onto a winner, with the chance to charge me up to 5 times over for delivery BEFORE I finally receive the correct part. Suppose you asked your milkman to deliver you 4 pints of semi skimmed milk per day. Would you accept them being a week past their sell by date on the strength of your milkman claiming you never specified within sell by date? Didn't think so. As for T&C's, the supplier's website simply states that the EU Distance Selling Directive applies, but with no link provided. On searching it out , the closest related data I can find is the following, which only seems to deal with unavailability and alternatives, but not unfit for purpose. It seems far less stringent than UK Law. Can UK based suppliers choose to use UE Law rather than UK Law? Article 7 Performance 1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the supplier must execute the order within a maximum of 30 days from the day following that on which the consumer forwarded his order to the supplier. 2. Where a supplier fails to perform his side of the contract on the grounds that the goods or services ordered are unavailable, the consumer must be informed of this situation and must be able to obtain a refund of any sums he has paid as soon as possible and in any case within 30 days. 3. Nevertheless, Member States may lay down that the supplier may provide the consumer with goods or services of equivalent quality and price provided that this possibility was provided for prior to the conclusion of the contract or in the contract. The consumer shall be informed of this possibility in a clear and comprehensible manner. The cost of returning the goods following exercise of the right of withdrawal shall, in this case, be borne by the supplier, and the consumer must be informed of this. In such cases the supply of goods or services may not be deemed to constitute inertia selling within the meaning of Article 9.

Finding the supplier on-line was done by a combination of initial phone call, whereupon I asked for details of the suppliers website, to get a better insight into his business. Once found, from then on, it was by e-mail. Apologies if this has confused anyone, but to explain everything fully in great detail would make for such huge posts. There's nothing I believe I've said to imply this is a German car, and the reason I don't want to publish details is because this is a live compliant, and the manufacturer is not commonly known, and it's likely the supplier may be the only one in the UK providing parts. If this was a car part, it would be a doddle to sort. For you to suggest you don't know what I'm buying here anymore than the supplier did because I'm not giving anything away...is a rather odd suggestion. You seem to think I've witheld as much information from the supplier, as I have from my CAG posts, even though I've posted what info I supplied, but not the details of it. Love to know why you think this. You say suppliers are not mind readers, which is of course true, but as the manufacturers approved spares outlet, HE has access to spares data that I do not, and THAT data is what I expect him to read. If it helps, the part in question is a control cable on a piece of garden machinery. The supplied part was 40% shorter than required, which means a very significant design change had taken place. Likewise, I can't read the manufacturers mind to know how many modifications he chose to apply during the production run of this machine, especially as these have NOT been reflected in a change of model number. I would have expected a competent supplier to have interrogated the parts data he has been granted access to for the purpose, and if there were several options, not all of which would fit, then I'd expect HIM to tell ME about this BEFORE negligently ordering one which I had advised I cannot confirm is correct. Whilst probably not covered by direct Law, yes I do believe the supplier owes me something. If he has paid for access to manufacturers spares data, then this will have been reflected in the price for the part, so I'd expect him to use it. If the manufacturer provided this access & training then again, the manufacturer will be recovering his costs in the price of both spares and the original purchase of the machine. Using your own XYZ dragon analogy, I'm glad to hear you'd be happy to help, but the picture you'd like to have to give you a much better chance of ID'ing the dragon equates to exactly what's already available at the suppliers fingertips (the manufacturers illustrated parts data) in this case. Thanks for the Parcel Monkey tip...I'l give them a try.

The only things I've witheld are description, make, model, supplier details, for obvious reasons. During the initial phone call to the supplier I made it perfectly clear that the part number was obtained by my relative, an old person who's patience & logic is, well, in decline, and who's the sort who would haggle prices down and always look for a bargain. Hence it seemed odd that his original retailer would turn away custom, on an addmittance that he'd get it cheaper elsewhere, so it's possible there may have been some 'abrasion'. I don't know, I wasn't there, but I explained all the above to this supplier, to support why the part number I had been given could not be relied on as correct. This was backed up by e-mail in the form of a reminder that for the reasons discussed, the 'apparent' part number may not be correct. Therefore, I believed I had given enough info to ensure the supplier wouldn't simply go and order the part number (provided only as a guide to help narrow down & speed up his search) without doing some checks, using data he has access to, that I don't, and that he has acknowledged I don't. It was therefore a shock receive the very part number I'd warned may not be correct, and indicates there may have been some degree of negligence if the supplier failed to carry out the expected checks. I felt the implication of what I had told the supplier was adequate for him to understand that he'd need to check spares data available to him. I did not think it was neccessary to further spell it out to him that this means I want the correct part number and not neccessarily the one provided. If there's anything else you'd like to know, please ask (excluding the details I've said I don't think I should post of course).

Fenris, you’re right, I’ve never had to provide a part number to a motor factor company, and these days with current IT, they’re quite happy & capable to work from nothing more than just regn and part description only. I don’t see why distance selling should make negligence somehow acceptable. I assure you this is not a commonly available part or brand. I had searched quite deeply on line but all I found was the German manufacturer’s website, which produced no results for the model, suggesting it’s no longer be in production. All I got was details for their only listed UK dealer. However, on phoning this dealer, I was told not anymore we’re not! They referred me on to the subject company who had taken over supply of spares. First contact was by phone whereupon I made very sure to tell them the part number I had for the described part might not be correct. This was reconfirmed in my response to their e-mail which they sent me to confirm price, and (I had expected by duty of care) suitability of the part too. The general consensus at CAG seems to be that by offering a possible part number, despite making it clear I can’t confirm it’s correctness, I’ve incurred full liability for this, even though I have no access to parts data, and the broken part itself is unmarked. Fenris, you've gone one step further to say it's wholly my responsibility to ensure I’m ordering the right part, so where does the Law stand on making parts data available to me to enable this? To be clear; I asked for a specific part by description, I did not ask for a specific part number, only gave it as a possible, with a caveat for the purpose of helping the supplier track it down on the manufacturer’s website he had access to, and which I did not. It seems the Law has arranged for distance selling to be no better than a game of battleships for consumers, and one which suppliers can’t lose. Thanks for another viewpoint, and happy New Year to all at CAG.

Did I really order the wrong part? Perhaps I should clarify further that I made it very clear the part number I gave could not be confirmed as correct because the manufacturer denies customers access to the parts lists & diagrams. Part numbers for accessories ONLY are provided with the machine, but NOT spares. If there were variants / options on the parts to repair this fault, then I would have expected the supplier ( with his 'dealer only' access to the data) to advise me of these, and give ME enough data to enable me to choose which part I needed BEFORE he blind ordered an unsuitable part for me. As for the Law, the closest I've found is withrdawal without reason, so long as I pay return postage, but this incident IS with good reason; statutory rights; unfit for purpose. The 1983 Sale of Goods Act Part III section 36 says I don't even have to bother to return rejected goods, but if I do that, I'm stuck with an unuseable part, and have paid more than I needed to through no fault of my own. 'Taking it out' on the people who provided the wrong part number seems a little strong, as there was no contract with them because the machine was out of warranty, and they're bound to say info provided in good faith. The only 'preventitive' action I can think of for the future is to explain to the manufacturer what should already be obvious to him, i.e. The customer holding the failed equipment can SEE what he needs, whilst the (distance selling) dealer can't. The whole point of an illustrated parts list (IPL) is to enable conversion of visible faults via diagrams, to part numbers, which are what suppliers & manufactures work with. For a manufacture to restrict IPL access to dealers only seems inefficient to the point of stupidity. I have written to the manufacturer but, a little more subtley than detailed here. Similarly, manufacturers restricting access to maintenance data has been encountered in the motor trade, generating the 'right to repair' campaign.

Hi Folks, What should I do here? I ordered a spare part by e-mail from a supplier, on behalf of a relative who does not have a PC. He had been given a part number by the retailer he bought the machine from, who wanted such a shockingly high price, they actually advised it would be cheaper to find it elsewhere on the internet. With no PC, my relly passed the problem to me. I found a supplier on-line and e-mailed them with the model number of the machine, making it clear I could not verify correctness of the part number I had. I did try the manufacturer's website and although they do have illustrated parts catalogues, it's dealer access only. On receipt the part was incorrect I e-mailed the supplier asking for a prepaid sticker to return it. The supplier has advised this is now a new order so I'll have to pay to return it and pay repeat delivery charges. As the part provided was unfit for purpose, I believe the Law requires that all further postage costs remain the responsibility of the supplier. However, the correct replacement part is significantly cheaper than the incorrect one, and the supplier has told me some of this difference will cover the repeat postage charge. I'm stuck with paying to return a part we can't use, and the supplier already has more of my money than the cost of the correct part anyway. If I insist on 'my rights' under Distance Selling Law, the supplier (having already declined to comply) may choose not to respond. If this happens, it certainly won't be cost effective to pursue it legally, especially as it's likely they'll claim I have the part I provided the part number for. The only cost effective option I can see here is to accept I'm going to lose out...unless anyone has any better ideas please? .