Short answer
For a change-of-mind cancellation under the 14-day right of withdrawal, the consumer bears the direct cost of returning the goods — but only if the trader told them so before they ordered.
"The consumer shall only bear the direct cost of returning the goods unless the trader has agreed to bear them or the trader failed to inform the consumer that the consumer has to bear them." —
Three exceptions to the default:
- The trader agreed to bear them — a free-returns policy is binding once offered.
- The trader failed to inform — silence shifts the cost to the trader.
- Off-premises contracts with bulky goods delivered to the home — the trader must collect at its own expense where the goods cannot normally be returned by post.
This is a separate question from defective goods, where the consumer is not paying for the return at all. Confusing the two is the most common error in return policies.
The information duty is the pivot
The default is not self-executing. It depends on disclosure made before the consumer is bound:
"where applicable, that the consumer will have to bear the cost of returning the goods in case of withdrawal and, for distance contracts, if the goods, by their nature, cannot normally be returned by post, the cost of returning the goods" —
Note the second limb. For goods that cannot normally be returned by post — a sofa, a treadmill, a large appliance — the trader must disclose the actual cost of returning them, not merely that a cost exists. Where that cost cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the trader must at least give a reasonable estimate, so the consumer can factor it into the decision.
The sanction for getting this wrong is explicit:
"If the trader has not complied with the information requirements on additional charges or other costs as referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, or on the costs of returning the goods as referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1, the consumer shall not bear those charges or costs." —
And the burden sits with the trader: Article 6(9) places the burden of proof of compliance with the information requirements on the trader.
So a trader that cannot evidence what it told the consumer, before the order, about return costs will pay for the return. Article 6(4) offers a safe harbour — supplying the model instructions on withdrawal in Annex I(A), correctly filled in, satisfies points (h), (i) and (j).
"Direct cost" means postage, not handling
Article 14(1) allows recovery of the direct cost of returning the goods. That is the carriage cost actually incurred.
It does not extend to the trader's internal costs of processing the return — inspection, restocking, repackaging or administration. A "restocking fee" or "returns handling charge" deducted from the refund is not a direct cost of return and is not authorised by Article 14(1).
Article 14(5) closes the door on additional charges:
"Except as provided for in Article 13(2) and in this Article, the consumer shall not incur any liability as a consequence of the exercise of the right of withdrawal." —
Where the trader offers a prepaid return label, it may deduct the actual cost of that label from the refund — provided it disclosed that it would.
The bulky-goods rule for off-premises contracts
A distinct rule applies where the contract was concluded off-premises and the goods were delivered to the consumer's home at the time of conclusion:
"In the case of off-premises contracts where the goods have been delivered to the consumer's home at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the trader shall at his own expense collect the goods if, by their nature, those goods cannot normally be returned by post." —
This is mandatory and the trader cannot contract out of it. Note its limits: it applies to off-premises contracts, not ordinary distance selling, and only where delivery occurred at the time of conclusion. A sofa ordered online and delivered a fortnight later is an ordinary distance contract, and the Article 6(1)(i) disclosure route applies instead.
The return itself: deadline and mechanics
Article 14(1) requires the consumer to send the goods back, or hand them over, without undue delay and in any event within 14 days of communicating the withdrawal decision. Posting within the 14 days is sufficient — the deadline is met if the consumer sends the goods back before the period expires.
The trader has its own 14-day clock under Article 13(1), running from the day it is informed of the withdrawal, and must reimburse using the same means of payment unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise and incurs no fee.
Article 13(3) gives the trader a shield against paying before the goods come back:
"Unless the trader has offered to collect the goods himself, with regard to sales contracts, the trader may withhold the reimbursement until he has received the goods back, or until the consumer has supplied evidence of having sent back the goods, whichever is the earliest." —
Proof of posting therefore triggers the refund obligation even before the parcel arrives.
Defective goods are a different regime
If the consumer is returning goods because they do not conform to the contract, this analysis does not apply at all. That is the Sale of Goods Directive 2019/771, not the withdrawal right.
Article 14 of that Directive requires repair or replacement to be carried out free of charge, without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and provides for the consumer to make the goods available to the seller. "Free of charge" covers the necessary costs of bringing the goods into conformity, including postage where relevant.
The practical distinction:
- Change of mind — consumer pays return postage if properly informed.
- Defective or non-conforming — the consumer should not be out of pocket.
A returns policy that charges the consumer postage for a faulty item is likely to be non-compliant. A policy that requires the consumer to prove the fault before the trader will cover postage should also be checked against Article 11 of the Sale of Goods Directive, which presumes that a lack of conformity appearing within one year existed at delivery, with Member States free to extend that to two.
Common policy errors
- Silence on return costs. Article 6(6) then makes them the trader's.
- Restocking or handling fees. Not direct costs of return; not authorised.
- Refusing to refund until inspection is complete. Article 13(3) permits withholding only until receipt or proof of dispatch.
- Requiring original packaging as a condition of refund. The withdrawal right is not conditional on packaging. Packaging may be relevant to diminished value under Article 14(2), which is a different and narrower question.
- Charging return postage on defective goods. Wrong regime.
- No cost figure for bulky goods. Article 6(1)(i) requires the actual cost for goods that cannot normally be returned by post.
- Different rules per country without checking. The Directive is largely full-harmonisation on these points, but Member States retain options — including the 30-day withdrawal period under Article 9(1a) for unsolicited visits and excursions.
Operational checklist
- State clearly, before the order, that the consumer bears return costs.
- For goods that cannot normally be returned by post, state the actual cost or a reasonable estimate.
- Consider using the Annex I(A) model instructions to secure the Article 6(4) safe harbour.
- Keep evidence of the pre-contract disclosure and its version history.
- Remove restocking and handling fees from the refund logic.
- Refund on proof of dispatch, not on inspection.
- Separate the faulty-goods returns path and pay postage on it.
- Check whether off-premises bulky-goods collection applies to any sales channel.
Conclusion
The default allocates return postage to the consumer, but it is a conditional default. The trader earns it by telling the consumer, clearly and before the order, that they will have to pay — and for bulky items, how much.
Get the disclosure right and the cost sits where the Directive intends. Get it wrong and Article 6(6) moves it, with the burden of proving compliance on the trader under Article 6(9). And keep the faulty-goods path entirely separate: there, the consumer should not be paying postage at all.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.