I have had 'the letter' and am about to make 'the telephone call'....

[donna255]

It has been noticed on the new graphics there is a message about some products not liable for refunds. The depending on how much of a beauty product you have used(yes it was put up on Facebook QVC page the per cent age you should use in the 30 MBG period), so QVC are now covering their ***** and now expanding with a quick flash on screen. But since everyone is so dazzled by CHuntley telling us how grateful we should be to have QVC how many have noticed?

 

[boffy]

i dont do the 30 day mbg as a rule. i either like something or i dont. usually if something is faulty it will go straight back asap....or if its not the right size or quality

 

[Loverofquiet]

Pointless new rule

It has been noticed on the new graphics there is a message about some products not liable for refunds. The depending on how much of a beauty product you have used(yes it was put up on Facebook QVC page the per cent age you should use in the 30 MBG period), so QVC are now covering their ***** and now expanding with a quick flash on screen. But since everyone is so dazzled by CHuntley telling us how grateful we should be to have QVC how many have noticed?

I saw the new graphics, but they are meaningless as they do not give enough detail. I, and many others, do not do Facebook, so could not be expected to know what percentage of gunk has to be left in the pot for a return to be valid. Therefore, how can they enforce this?

And if they are selling cosmetics with the promise that you can try them, surely they cannot make a difference between a pot of cream returned with 90% left in, versus one with 10% left in, as both are un-resaleable on health and safety grounds.

The new rules are not spelled out, unless they are going to say every time they demonstrate a cream that you can only try X amount, and surely they will not bore everyone stupid by saying that several times each beauty programme.

I would like to hear other people's comments on this, please.

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

I don't buy beauty from Q but I MIGHT if they sold sample sizes at a reasonable price and free p&p with a % refund if you purchase a full size item within a stated time frame. This way they could put restrictions on the 3o MBG for items which can't be shipped out to unsuspecting customers.

As LoQ says if it's 9 or 90% it's unsaleable, in fact I seem to remember that as they can't guarantee it hasn't be opened they can't resell any cosmetics, but wonder if that has ever stopped them in the past (T bags to the ready folks)

 

[SuziQ]

I am just returning to my thread as I haven't had the chance to ring them yet- emergency with my son at school today took priority!

I agree with the advice so many have given to email and stick to facts. Such a coincidence that I had produced a spreadsheet of my purchases yesterday thinking how bad I feel quality control is these days!

If I was to email the CEO how would I find his email address? I looked on the Q site but couldn't see it anywhere.

I really don't care if they close my account, to be honest . I so rarely look at the presentations now , and I don't feel they offer such great deals any more. I also get really peeved over the p&p costs even though I know they are high to cover some of their losses due to returns! There are a very few things I buy from Q as they are cheaper, and I wish there was a cheaper p&p offered where you relinquish your rights to the 30 day mbg unless faulty. This would be ideal for those repeat purchases where we know we love a product .

 

[Craftalot]

The thing which is beyond reproach here is QVC banging on about 30day MBG, actively encouraging customers to 'try before you commit', 'risk-free shopping' and all that sales crap whilst in reality sticking to the letter and not the spirit of what's being sold. In my opinion, if they're going to use the 30 day MBG so aggressively in every sales pitch, then they need to build into their business model the expected financial loss to the company from customers' use of this policy. Otherwise, it's really not cricket. Tiddlywinks is quite right with her analysis of it (QVC is there to make money, after all and is not compelled to accept anyone's order) but if they want to really prove that they're 'the nation's second most trusted brand' then perhaps they need to 'walk the walk' rather than 'talking the talk' as their parent company might say.

 

[Akimbo]

What irked me when I spoke to some spotty yoof about my "Letter" apart from their patronising attitude, was that he didn't really listen to the points I was trying to make (about the way the % was calculated and the fact that garment sizing was inconsistent) but more annoying is the fact that it's the vendors not QVC who bear the cost of returns. I also mentioned presenters over-selling items which didn't live up to the hype. Afterwards he kindly sent me a letter summarising our discussion; a work of fiction that said I'd agreed to to be more discerning about future orders and included a grainy photo-copy of the size charts for Kim and Co, Michele Hope etc.

So definitely email, it'll give you a record of what's said on both sides.

Here's the CEO's email (assuming it's still Dermot Boyd) [email protected] Good luck and let us know what goes on.

 

[louise66]

i dont do the 30 day mbg as a rule. i either like something or i dont. usually if something is faulty it will go straight back asap....or if its not the right size or quality

Same here.

 

[louise66]

You are either entitled to a 30 day mbg, or you are not. The number of times it is utilised, should not even be relevant. I have never had a problem with returns but, if I received "the letter", I would reassess my patronage of the Q.

 

[May]

This is what happens when company's get bigger and bigger ...arrogance ....Mark and Spencer's always an example I give .....it always comes back to bite them on the bot bot :mysmilie_17:

 

[Turandot]

I have not had this specific letter, but had something similar when my debit card was stolen and Q did not have my new card details. I forgot to inform them. I was in the middle of several easy pays and their letter came across like I was trying to avoid paying .They sent me three duplicate letters. I was fuming and I think it's what made me start buying less and less from Q.Now it's hardly anything.
Sara G was saying repeatedly yesterday send it back "no questions asked." No questions asked until Q wants to ask questions.

 

[Wornoutcreditcard]

QVC seem to think that th3y have a God given right to sell substandard overpriced tat and get away with it because they have a loyal , ever diminishing , customer base and they used to be the second most trusted retailer in the UK.
Tell them why you returned the goods and close your acc to save some cash to spend with a company that values your custom

 

[Weathergirl]

You are either entitled to a 30 day mbg, or you are not. The number of times it is utilised, should not even be relevant. I have never had a problem with returns but, if I received "the letter", I would reassess my patronage of the Q.

Could not agree more Louise.

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

Could not agree more Louise.

Yes, it's like being a bit pregnant

 

[miss molly]

I would not ring them, its a bit like being summoned to the Bosses office for a formal warning.

 

[JR's Ego]

This 'Letter' situ must be a random bullet, sent out to unlucky customers, because of some other individuals who abuse the 30 MBG

There must be some people (judging by some historical posts on ST about credit cards in delivered handbags, coconut mushrooms in pockets of 'new' coats) who totally play about with QVC, for example, ordering, wearing to event -returning, or returning saying there is a fault to skip return charges, or dont return item complete, saying it didnt arrive complete (using it as a free return reason) etc etc..

Its these people who totally ruin it for the rest of us. Luckily I have had no probs (customer since 1995, went a bit wild 97 - 2001 10% returns, went into QVC rehab 2002, since then, approx 3 orders a year) so, have escaped the Q Grim reaper

But yep, I really think its an unlucky customer bullet that is being fired here

 

[Vienna]

This 'Letter' situ must be a random bullet, sent out to unlucky customers, because of some other individuals who abuse the 30 MBG

There must be some people (judging by some historical posts on ST about credit cards in delivered handbags, coconut mushrooms in pockets of 'new' coats) who totally play about with QVC, for example, ordering, wearing to event -returning, or returning saying there is a fault to skip return charges, or dont return item complete, saying it didnt arrive complete (using it as a free return reason) etc etc..

Its these people who totally ruin it for the rest of us. Luckily I have had no probs (customer since 1995, went a bit wild 97 - 2001 10% returns, went into QVC rehab 2002, since then, approx 3 orders a year) so, have escaped the Q Grim reaper

But yep, I really think its an unlucky customer bullet that is being fired here

I fully agree. It`s always the dishonest minority who spoil things for the majority. When you think about it, someone could order the dress, shoes, LG bag, perfume, makeup and jewellery for some special occasion, wear it all for a wedding/anniversary/birthday party or whatever and then return the lot. True they`d have to pay return postage but it would cost a lot less than actually buying the stuff to keep. I bet there`s more than a few people who`ve actually done a similar thing. A bag for a wedding or a necklace for a party or a pair of boots for a trip out etc etc etc. with absolutely no intention of keeping the item and the rest of us pay the price for it.

 

[AndiK]

I bet there are also people who would buy a £90 pot of face cream, scoop most of it out into another container and then return the original pot under the MBG, hence QVC have had to instigate a "fair usage" policy with max permissable percentages used. Why else would they care how much you were returning when, as mentioned earlier, you can't re-sell an opened item anyway?

 

[donna255]

I saw the new graphics, but they are meaningless as they do not give enough detail. I, and many others, do not do Facebook, so could not be expected to know what percentage of gunk has to be left in the pot for a return to be valid. Therefore, how can they enforce this?

And if they are selling cosmetics with the promise that you can try them, surely they cannot make a difference between a pot of cream returned with 90% left in, versus one with 10% left in, as both are un-resaleable on health and safety grounds.

The new rules are not spelled out, unless they are going to say every time they demonstrate a cream that you can only try X amount, and surely they will not bore everyone stupid by saying that several times each beauty programme.

I would like to hear other people's comments on this, please.

No one knew about the beauty thing(QVC's little secret it seems), until a woman complained on FB that she returned a TSV and had it sent back to her for using too much product. I did copy and paste it here about 18 months ago. QVC then replied on FB they worked out how much much a normal person should use in the 30 day MBG!!!!! Really!!!!

Now I read the QVC US forum and one woman did admit she ordered a particular brand when on TSV and take the expensive face cream out of the pot and decant into another one. Then returned the TSV for a refund. So she was taking the P big time. Most were outraged at her, but a few said to avoid a letter she should put a cheap cream in the pot!!!!! So Andik someone for sure was doing it.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

Honestly if I got "the letter" I would simply close my account and walk away. I don't have that many returns so its unlikely to happen but if over 50%, which seems to be the rule, of what I bought had to be returned then I would be questioning why I shopped with them in the first place. I would hope I never get the letter. All that wasted postage, time and effort.