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

[Turandot]

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.

Yes I buy only what I need and I don't fall for the buy 3 colours/sizes and send back the ones you don't like.I don't impulse buy these days .Sizing on Q is an ongoing problem so I don't go there.

I can see why people are annoyed because Q encourages the purchase of multiple items on a regular basis.They must figure that some people will not bother to return so quids in for Q .......And those that do they can harrass with the letter.

 

[boffy]

i dont know any companies that moan about returns. its part of distance selling. if qvc dont want people to wear items for 30 days they should get rid of the 30 day mbg promise. hopefully they will try harder with being more honest about items they are selling and curb the bad habit of overcharging for postage

 

[Akimbo]

I could not get the yoof I spoke to to explain fully how the % is measured. Is it a tally of items returned or is it monetary value/price? EG If I ordered 3 foundations trying to find the right colour but none matched so returned them but then bought and kept 600 quids worth of anonymous tech that plays music and blows out candles, would I get the lettter? He also couldn't tell me whether the time period used was a rolling 12 months or a calender or tax year, because moving the goal-posts could significantly alter the % total. I wasn't sure it would have made much difference to my total returns but if my shopping and returns are being monitored I want to know what criteria are used.

Last word: If I'm being challenged for returning say a £60 garment because it turns out to be no better than a £20 market stall polyester top, then I'd be interested to know the percentage of returns for that garment, I suspect that oversold clothing generates huge numbers of returns which I think would vindicate my return.

 

[louise66]

I totally understand people may order, say, some LE, use the C+P, and most of the moisturiser, taking the p**s, basically, then return it for a refund. Being honest, it would be worth the lost postage. But QVC are aware of this and should amend the t+cs of the mbg. Chuntley has been spouting on about how the Q is different from other retailers, because it respects the customer, allowing them to use the item. They need to elucidate upon what the 30 day mbg actually covers, if they are unhappy with the volume and condition of returned items. People who receive "the letter" do not feel, I am sure, respected.

 

[Breeze]

And what about the returned goods that get sent out to you? Yesterday I received, & sent straight back under DSR, a dress that had obviously been worn not just tried on as it reeked strongly of not very nice perfume. Whoever it was hadn't even bothered to repack it properly, all crumpled up, the tissue inside screwed up & the bag roughly sealed with a bit of Sellotape. Can understand if people just need to try on a garment as in a shop, especially with the rubbish sizing details they give out, but to have things like this as returns counted against you is ludicrous.

 

[AndiK]

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.

Thanks. Interesting ... especially that they admitted to it!

 

[Baloo]

The email address is:-
[email protected]
The only way to get a result.

 

[SuziQ]

Well I completed my email ready to send, and just made the call. The young lady I spoke to was extremely nice and made a big fact that they weren't criticising me or trying to upset me, they would just like some feedback on those items I returned which weren't faulty ( and yes, she did have the stats on what percentage I returned faulty etc.) the things they were querying amounted to a return rate of about 20% and included a bracelet they had sent out wrong size, a Christmas wreath that on presentation I had been led to believe would also include a garland or two mini pre lit tress- they apologised for the confusion on that and I noticed they changed the web page after I complained. It also included some emu boots which I ordered following their advice re size but were about two sizes too big, and a dress I ordered from Tiana B- bought the same size I had before, as per presentation instructions, and couldn't get it past my shoulders! ( I honestly haven't gained 2 stone in the last year!) it also included a babyliss hair tool I bought for my daughter for Christmas which she only tried once because she managed to burn her scalp- so not faulty but £100 was too much for me to waste when she was too scared to use it!



I am really going to think seriously about ordering from Q again. As I have said, the young lady I spoke to couldn't have been more pleasant and I was left feeling it was all a bit 'storm in a t-cup ' but even so it leaves a bad taste - especially as they DID have the stats that my high return late was mainly due to faulty or wrongly sent products. What are THEY going to do about that problem, I wonder?!

ETA I forgot to say- she made the comment that it costs them a lot to process a return. I replied that high p&p charges must surely more than cover that! Places like ASOS charge no outward or return postage and I know from someone that works for them that they have a very high return rate, as their mainly young clientele order loads and then only keep a small percentage of it. My daughter will order several sizes of one thing to get the one she needs. In 3 years she has never had a complaint about her returns rate, yet ASOS don't even have any buffer from p&p charges!

I am shocked at how people apparently abuse the system, re decanting skin care or ordering fully intending to return . I suppose it's always going to happen but it SO dishonest !

 

[Akimbo]

another rambling post with no real conclusions....

Most QVC clothing returns are resent to the next buyer, even though we're told we can wear a garment for 4 weeks then decide to return it - so not much loss there from one garment but the same item might be sold and returned multiple times; each time contributing to anther buyer's returns percentage! I reckon QVC will take some sort of action to covertly recoup the postage they now have to refund where a buyer returns a garment within the first 2 weeks. When before the rules changed, it used to be just people who knew to cancel under the old DSR rules.

As far as face creams being used, in our home my DD uses cleanse and polish on her make up models at college as well as she and I both using it to remove our make up. Plus MR A and our son will use it for shaving if they're out of foam. It's one of the regular sales pitch that all the family can use it so QVC can't possibly estimate how much we'd use in 2 or 4 weeks. Possibly Q could allow buyers to opt out of the 30 day MBG where there's a repeat purchase, afterall I can't honestly test C&P again and return a recent purchase having used the product for years, and all other reasons for return like a broken pump or crushed package would fall under statutory consumer protection anyway. But if QVC wanted me to opt out of the 30 day MBG then they'll have to offer me a sweetener - lower p&p maybe? To start offering different levels of returns would be a huge procedural headache and probably the 30 day"no quibble" MBG is just cheaper to run.

If, after recalculating my returns to remove faulty, lost and DSR returns, my 30 day MBG returns still amount to more than 50% I'd possibly volunteer to undergo a 6 month period of DSR only returns, waiving my right to the 30 day no quibble returns. I wonder whether QVC would go for it? Probably not.

 

[Breeze]

So your actual return rate for non faulty items was 20%? And they knew that?
That's a lot less than they state so why send you a letter? Bit much!!

 

[SuziQ]

So have. DSR changed Akimbo? I wasn't aware. I made the comment in my call that it's impossible to know for sure if a clothing or shoe purchase will fit. Even clarks sometimes doesn't work for me, especially I find in their boots. I just won't order clothes or shoes again and won't be purchasing Christmas presents from Q again either . I bought bethleham lights Christmas lights last Christmas which were amazing but will hopefully not need to be a repeat purchase so I'm not really sure I need to buy anything from them again! I was considering the upcoming Acer laptop to replace the one I had to return however I am now seriously deciding against it, no matter how 'wonderful' it may appear on present ion ( can't stand the guy who usually present them anyway!)

 

[Akimbo]

As I understand it there's no need to email and "cancel the order under DSR" to qualify for refund of the outward p&p. Provided you return in the first 14 days (i think) QVC will refund the original postage automatically. (if they don't you can chase them for it so well worth checking your refund amounts).

I'm glad you got an almost satisfactory outcome from phoning QVC, but I wonder whether it was really worth it from their point of view. Why did they stop asking for a return reason on the invoices if they're genuinely bothered about people's reason for return? The former tick box system must be cheaper to implement than letters and phone calls to a chosen few. Plus they've managed to alienate a customer who actually only returns 20% of orders!

 

[miss molly]

I ordered the Last Lulu Tsv and have just started using it, I used the collagen Bomb cream once and then the pump stopped working and the pot felt empty. I read the reviews and low and behold a lot of other people have had the same problem so I called Q and they can't send me a replacement so the whole kit is going back. This is just one example of QVC quality control I think it has gone down the pan lately.
If you pay a visit to the outlet stores you will see the state of some things people send back and Q try to sell on, I have seen half burned large Yankee candles and dirty pans some people have no shame.

 

[SuziQ]

Breeze, I agree. I think it is a waste of their time but it has made me reconsider once again whether to buy from them. I did go without buying a single thing for 11 months a few years ago and I received a 'hello how are you ' card- which I thought a bit risky- what if I had died and a relative opened it? :mysmilie_10:

 

[May]

I think buy with caution from QVC is needed more now ...big business now .....lost the speacial touch

 

[Anna]

So your actual return rate for non faulty items was 20%? And they knew that?
That's a lot less than they state so why send you a letter? Bit much!!

I was thinking the same - 20%! Good grief - they are just shooting themselves in the foot if they are using that as a gauge for returns. Way to go QVC alienating customers for no good reason.

 

[JR's Ego]

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.

Unbelievable story! I would be very interested to find out how John Lewis would respond if this woman did exactly the same thing with a pot of cream from their beauty department In fact, I would be interested in JLs attitude regarding purchases and returns. Have to admit, I have never ordered or returned products to JL

 

[Buglet]

Written by Tiddlywink yesterday (sorry I can’t work out how to show a particular post I wish to reply to without cutting and pasting)

“Firstly, I am in no way defending Q's actions but here is something to remember:

This isn't personal. Q is a business and it wants to make money.

Customers who have too many returns are not as profitable - it's as simple as that.

As a business, they can refuse to trade with anyone who does not meet with their approval (as long as refusal is not based on 'protected characteristics' such as race, disability, sexual orientation etc).

When you first get your membership details you are made aware that there are additional terms and conditions - if you don't have access to the web then you can ask for a hard copy to be posted to you... but, let's face it, how many of us do actually read all of the small print before we buy?

So, Q is giving the customer a 'heads up' that it might be exercising its right to refuse an order sometime in the future.

The letter doesn't imply that the normal statutory rights won't be honored for existing / past orders... such as with faulty goods, not fit for purpose or whatever. It's simply saying that the returns rate is higher than it likes and it may decide not to do business with a customer as a result.

My only criticism would be the over-play on the 30 day MBG by the presenters.”

-------
Tiddlywinks - thank you for this post, and you are of course right about "protected characteristics" but when I got The Letter a few years ago I wrote to QVC and explained to them that much of my high return rate was a direct result of my disability (I won't explain all the reasons for this here but please believe me that I was and am telling the truth) I gave QVC numerous examples of this and explained that under the law they could not just apply "a one size fits all" process but needed to look at individual customers circumstances, and that maybe in this particular case, because there was a correlation with a disability, they might like to consider allowing a slightly higher return rate before their procedures were invoked. I also asked them to put my letters on my file for future reference. Initially I was told that everyone had to be treated the same but when I queried this someone phoned to say that actually every case was looked at individually but they did not accept that under the law they needed to even consider making ANY allowances for disability issues. Fortunately in the last year they have left me alone and so I have not bothered to challenge them but I think they might get a bit of a surprise if they took advice. Their tone left a very bad feeling and I'm afraid that I can no longer buy their corporate (as against individual CS staff who have been good) "great customer service" blurb.

 

[Mazza]

SuziQ if you have had the letter and now been told your known return rate is 20%, I think Darren Boyd should be asked to explain himself.

As for people taking the P with some returns, surely the dresses being worn to events cannot qualify as I thought we were supposed to feel free to use the products as normal during this period. Any quick trying on and repackaging scenario would qualify under DSR. And is part of the problem that Q really does not want to have to comply with DSR? Because the MBG is seeming more like old flannel as time progresses. I have to confess I have never used it as I only buy things I am pretty confident I want. If I am unsure I go to the DHS, and have never bought clothes or shoes from Q. I would use it for an electrical purchase I am undecided about though, especially if on EZP, so get it home and try it out for a month on 1/3 of the cost. Excellent.