Martin Lewis is reporting 30 huge shops to Trading Standards
Talking about online sales - apart from perishable or personalised orders, where the rules differ - he says: "you have an absolute right to change your mind, and you have 14 days after delivery.
"Important, it's after delivery, not after order, in which to tell them you're sending an item back, and 14 days after the point at which you've told them to actually send it back, which means maximum of 28 days.
30 retailers including Selfridges, New Look and The Range are publishing misleading (worse) return rights information on their websites than you legally have. Find which stores to be careful of, and what your rights are.
For the full list of stores go to https://t.co/OmtOhdU5Hs… pic.twitter.com/shnOBQjD2y — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) July 7, 2025
"Now, as an aside, if you buy something in store, you have no of return, and there'll be people with jaws dropping over that you have no right to return items bought in store.
"Some stores will allow it as part of their returns policy, and if they publish that returns policy, it's part of the contract, but you can't take back goods bought in store unless they're faulty."
He continues: "What they're putting on their websites are the their return rights, right if you're buying something in store, but it doesn't apply if it's faulty. Let's give you a few examples of where it's wrong. Let's take Monsoon. Got it written in front of me. Monsoon says, 'send them to us exactly as you receive them in a new and unused condition within 30 days of dispatch'. Well, first of all, it starts at receipt. It doesn't start at dispatch.
"For full price items and within 14 days for sale reduced items from the date of dispatch," he corrects. "Online, by law, you've got 14 days to notify them and a further 14 days to send it back.
"What they have on their website is wrong. It is not your legal right.
"New Look, 'you can return sale items within 14 days'," again, he corrects them, adding in what the policy should be. "No you can notify within 14 days, you got another 14 days to send back."
Then he adds another: "The Range: 'you need to return your item to us at our range marketplace partner, within 14 days of receiving'.
"No you have 14 days of receiving it to notify as you're sending back, and a further 14 days to send it back. And we found 30 examples. And what's really frustrating here is two of those. I mentioned Monsoon and New Look.
"My team and I last did this in 2018 and both of those had it wrong then, and we never found that at the time, and they still wrong now. So we're taking our dossier of evidence and giving it to Trading Standards."
Recommended reading:
The stores with incorrect returns policies listed:
This is the full list, from Money Saving Expert's website.
Benefit
Boden
Bondi Sands
Caffè Nero
Carluccio's
CEX
Early Learning Centre
Evans
Everything5pounds.com (no longer trading)
(no longer trading) ForbiddenPlanet.com
Freemans
Grüum
Guinness
Harvey Nichols
HiPP Organic
HMV
Home Bargains
Hotpod Yoga
Hush
Jessops
Joules
Monsoon
New Look
PerfectDraft
Poundland
Robert Dyas
Ryman
Selfridges
The Range
Victoria's Secret
Several retailers referenced outdated policy on their websites, namely the Distance Selling Regulations, which were replaced in 2014 by the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- Scottish Sun
Rachel Reeves ‘considers overruling' £44billion car finance Supreme Court decision in DAYS
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves may step in to overrule the Supreme Court's decision relating to the £44billion car finance scandal. The Supreme Court is set to decide next Friday whether motor finance providers should compensate customers over undisclosed broker commission arrangements. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans Credit: EPA But, the Government is looking at new laws to limit compensation claims against motor finance providers and making them less exposed to the scandal, according to The Guardian. These laws would set clear rules on disclosing broker commission fees and could even apply retroactively to existing cases. If passed, lenders like Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, and Close Brothers could face lower payouts. The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans. The move would be an exceptional step by the Treasury, which previously attempted to influence the Supreme Court proceedings in January. It's believed Government officials have been discussing the practicalities with both the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business and Trade. In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that motor finance firms broke the law by not telling borrowers about broker commission terms. This decision could lead to £44billion in compensation for millions of people. Motor finance companies argue they believed their practices followed the rules but say the ruling requires much more transparency. Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court heard the case in April. Martin Lewis explains potential new Financial Conducts Authority ruling The court will now announce its final decision on motor finance commissions on August 1. The Financing and Leasing Association, which represents motor finance companies, warns that if the Court of Appeal ruling is upheld, it could harm the motor finance market. They say it could lead to less lending, higher borrowing costs, and even company closures. The Government rarely steps in on compensation cases, but the Treasury is worried this scandal could scare off investors and hurt UK businesses. There are also fears that a huge compensation bill could damage the industry. Back in 2013, the coalition Government pushed through the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act to "protect the national economy" from a £130million payout. A Treasury spokesperson said they want a fair decision that gives consumers proper compensation for their losses. They added: "We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles. "It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course." Paul Carlier, the whistleblower who first exposed the scheme in 2016, has accused the Treasury of acting dishonestly to protect motor finance firms at the expense of millions of customers. He claims the FCA and Ombudsman have already covered up the scandal in previous years, depriving consumers of billions in redress. Andy Agathangelou, founder of consumer advocacy group Transparency Task Force said: "This is at least the second time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hoped to intervene, or should I say interfere, with the judicial process surrounding the car finance scandal. "It's not a good look for her, because she seems happy to in effect take money out of the pockets of innocent, harmed consumers, and put it in the pockets of banks and car finance companies that have broken the law." The Financial Ombudsman Service is struggling with a massive spike in complaints about commission practices, now totalling over 60,000 – triple the number since May 2024. The growing scandal could rival the infamous Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) debacle. In March, the Financial Conduct Authority confirmed it had been granted permission to intervene in the case and had submitted its arguments to the Court. Should the Supreme Court rule that motor finance customers have suffered losses as a result of widespread failings by firms, the FCA is expected to consult on the introduction of an industry-wide compensation scheme. Under a redress scheme, firms would need to figure out if their mistakes caused customers to lose money. If they did, the firms would have to pay the right amount of compensation. The FCA would create rules for firms to follow and make sure they stick to them. This scheme would make things easier for customers compared to making a formal complaint. While waiting for news on the redress scheme, customers can still make a claim directly, but the FCA has advised against using claims management companies or law firms to avoid unnecessary fees. WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHO'S AFFECTED? By James Flanders, Chief Consumer Reporter What is being investigated? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) launched an investigation last year into whether motorists were unknowingly overcharged when they took out car loans. The investigation by the City watchdog focuses on past practices where banks allowed car dealerships and brokers to set their own interest rates on loans. Under a now-banned discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), dealerships and brokers had a financial incentive to charge higher interest rates, as their commission increased proportionally. However, many customers were unaware of this practice. A landmark ruling in October 2024, deemed it unlawful for car dealers, acting as brokers, to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer's consent. This applied to both discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where dealers set interest rates, and non-discretionary commissions. The Supreme Court is now preparing to rule on whether lenders should be held responsible for compensating drivers. Who is eligible for compensation? There are two criteria you must meet to have a chance at receiving compensation. First, you must be complaining about a finance deal on a motor vehicle (including cars, vans, motorbikes, and motorhomes) that was agreed upon before January 28, 2021. Second, you must have bought the vehicle through a mechanism like Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP), which make up the majority of finance deals and mean you own the vehicle at the end of the agreement. Drivers who leased a car through a Personal Contract Hire, where you give the car back at the end of the lease, are not eligible. According to the financial regulator, on a typical £10,000 motor finance agreement, discretionary commission arrangements could have caused customers to pay an additional £1,100 in interest over a four-year term. The FCA extended the deadline for lenders to respond to complaints, meaning borrowers whose lenders received other forms of commission may now also be eligible for compensation. How can I make a claim now? Consumer finance website offers an email template to help you complain to your finance provider. You can download this by visiting Alternatively, you can complain directly without using the template. It's crucial for anyone who took out car finance to file a claim, even if a previous claim was denied. In your complaint, ask whether you were overcharged due to your broker receiving a commission and request the company to rectify this if it occurred. If you're unsatisfied with the company's response, you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) at no cost. You have until July 29, 2026, or up to 15 months from the date of the company's final response letter, whichever is longer. Avoid using a claims management firm, as they will take a portion of any successful claim.
Daily Mirror
4 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Martin Lewis urges parents to check if they are owed '£10,000s' by HMRC
For UK households that had children between 1978 and 2010, HMRC has issued a letter notifying them of an error Martin Lewis is encouraging parents who had children between 1978 and 2010 to check if they are owed a hefty sum of £10,000. This cash is linked to back taxes owed by UK households that took time off work during those years, with HMRC utilising National Insurance (NI) records to identify as many people as possible. On X, the money-saving expert warned: " State Pension error! Did you take time off work (1978 to 2010) to look after children or someone with long term disability? You could be owed £10,000s. "In brief: 100,000s wrongly have Nat Insurance gaps that reduce your State Pension as they should've got 'Home Responsibilities Protection'. The Govt was contacting people, but isn't any longer. Thus the onus is on YOU to proactively check. "Cilla emailed us, "I've just received 15yrs' back pay from HMRC of £31,674 for underpayment of my pension. Thank you." Brits could be due an average of £5,000 in back payments, according to the accounting experts at Robson Laidler. A spokesperson for Robson Laidler clarified: "It is estimated tens of thousands of people are due an average of £5,000 in back payments. HMRC and DWP are also conducting a wider campaign to ensure that everyone who may be eligible is aware of the corrections exercise." They further advised: "We would therefore advise checking your own NI records rather than waiting for a letter from DWP/HMRC to arrive. There is no time limit for applying for HRP if it has not been awarded. "Anyone who may have claimed Child Benefit before May 2000, when it was not mandatory to provide your National Insurance Number on your claim, may not have the correct number of years for State Pension purposes on their NI record, if you first made a claim after May 2000, you will not be affected." HMRC has stated: "HMRC will send you a letter if we think you may have missing Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP). "We want to help you make sure you receive the right amount of State Pension, so we're asking you to check if you were eligible for HRP between 1978 and 2010. "You may have been eligible if you received Child Benefit for a child under 16. The letter will tell you how you can check if you're eligible to claim missing Home Responsibilities Protection and how to make a claim." Those uncertain whether they've been underpaid have been encouraged to examine their state pension and National Insurance record - if there are missing years in your National Insurance record between 1978 to 2010, then you might be lacking HRP. You can submit a claim for missing HRP by utilising the online service on
Reuters
4 days ago
- Reuters
Indian cement firm ACC's first-quarter profit rises on price uptick
July 24 (Reuters) - Indian cement maker ACC ( opens new tab reported a first-quarter profit rise on Thursday, helped by higher prices of the construction material. Standalone profit after tax - which excludes the company's non-core realty and infrastructure subsidiaries - rose to 3.85 billion rupees ($44.6 million) in the three months ended June, up nearly 5%, the Adani Group firm said. April-June is typically a seasonally weak period for cement makers, as summer heatwaves followed by monsoon rains hinder the pace of construction and dent demand of the raw material. However, ACC's sales volumes have been insulated from seasonal volatility, thanks to the string of cement deals its billionaire-owner Gautam Adani has inked to challenge rival UltraTech's ( opens new tab polestar position in the sector, analysts have said. ACC'S revenues rose nearly 18% on-year to 60.15 billion rupees in the reported quarter, while costs grew over 16% to 55.61 billion rupees. ($1 = 86.3540 Indian rupees)
