Received used goods - disgusting!

[Yorkshire Pudding]

I received yesterday a used Leighton Denny Handbag Must Haves set. The set included a nail file, hand cream and a cuti-lips nail and lip balm. I took the top off the cuti-lips and was absolutely disgusted to find finger prints and gouges taken out of the top! urgh! talk about unhygenic! I rang QVC customer services who of course told me that this should never happen as their dispatch and returns departments are at the opposite ends of the warehouse and were most apologetic. Returns department here it comes. Needless to say I won't be having a replacement...

 

[BurlyBeaR]

id be taking photos of that and sending them to Trading Standards

 

[yazrose]

I do believe that there have been a few threads on this type of thing happening before.

It is completely disgusting that they would do this to customers.

 

[Boris Bear]

I received the same kit on Wednesday, mine had a finger print in the balm and the file was missing. I was assured they do not send out returned beauty items. I did ask for a replacement which arrived today and is fine. Mine had been on waitlist so I wonder if I was at the front of the queue and I got a return not a new item.

 

[qvcAddict]

Never had this so far but beyond appalling sending out used goods. Think you should telephone in next time they ask for caller testimonials

Do you think the line might go bad....

 

[Bexi]

Yuk, hope you kicked up a fuss

 

[daydreamer]

Triple check anything coming in from waitlist..have had this happen to me, I am convinced that some items are brought back in to ~sales~ from returns. Am so fed up hearing their excuse about how this "can never happen", they usually blame the manufacturer/supplier for sending it out in the used condition..next time I will contact the manufacturer for an explaination!:12:

daydreamer

 

[Nessarose]

The thought of receiving used beauty products turns my stomach and must have implications for health and safety.

I received some Birkenstock flip-flops that were muddy and still had the return form in from the previous customer. How someone can return them in that condition revolts me too.

I would imagine QVC must turn round returns, how can they possibly make money otherwise so why keep denying it? Perhaps it's time to change their policy about using a product for 30 days and then returning it, if they offered sampler sets of skin products at a reasonable price they could get round this.
I really don't like the idea of buying earrings from them now, I'm not sure I trust them enough. :spider:

 

[Rudolf]

I received the same kit on Wednesday, mine had a finger print in the balm and the file was missing. I was assured they do not send out returned beauty items. I did ask for a replacement which arrived today and is fine. Mine had been on waitlist so I wonder if I was at the front of the queue and I got a return not a new item.

I will not go on waitlist for any beauty item for this reason. The chances of getting a return are too high.

 

[Anne]

Disgusting. I'd also contact the Advertising Standards Agency as TV shopping is covered by them.

 

[qvcAddict]

You MUST all write to Trading Standards as it is an offence to sell second hand goods as new.

No question about it and they would be investigated and potentially prosecuted for it following sufficient complaints.

 

[merryone]

The thought of receiving used beauty products turns my stomach and must have implications for health and safety.

I received some Birkenstock flip-flops that were muddy and still had the return form in from the previous customer. How someone can return them in that condition revolts me too.

I would imagine QVC must turn round returns, how can they possibly make money otherwise so why keep denying it? Perhaps it's time to change their policy about using a product for 30 days and then returning it, if they offered sampler sets of skin products at a reasonable price they could get round this.
I really don't like the idea of buying earrings from them now, I'm not sure I trust them enough. :spider:

That's bad on two levels, firstly sending filthy used shoes, but details of another customer's account as well....totally unforgivable. To be honest, they should have sent you a free pair as a goodwill gesture, or at least a voucher with the apology...but they'd never do that would they?!

 

[qvcAddict]

I was just considering this again and the bit about sending out other peoples details is disgusting me too.

The Data Protection people would be very interested to hear of this....

 

[qvcAddict]

Oh dear. Out of further curiosity I searched 'used' on the qvc.com community forums and feel quite sick at some of the stories of used items received. This is no accident and rife.

Taking back tried on returns 'as new' and reselling is one thing but actually having a use it and return policy and still sending out to customers 'as new' is highly illegal under UK law.

As some of you have pointed out 'waitlist' does seem be a resounding issue. I will never be able to read the word waitlist again without realising what it can really mean.

This could finally be the thing to curb my qvc spending further. Who would have thought that the 30 day mbg qvc sells itself on could backfire so badly on them.

 

[barbedwire]

I received yesterday a used Leighton Denny Handbag Must Haves set. The set included a nail file, hand cream and a cuti-lips nail and lip balm. I took the top off the cuti-lips and was absolutely disgusted to find finger prints and gouges taken out of the top! urgh! talk about unhygenic! I rang QVC customer services who of course told me that this should never happen as their dispatch and returns departments are at the opposite ends of the warehouse and were most apologetic. Returns department here it comes. Needless to say I won't be having a replacement...

Oddly enough, I've had used Leighton Denny products sent to me too. I had a manicure kit which had a hand exfoliator in which had mucky fingerprints in it when it came - as if that wasn't bad enough, another product in the pack which contained some sort of oil had split open and promptly leaked over my carpet.

It went nicely along with my Marcel Drucker watch which had been worn, and came with a guarantee booklet that had someone's handwritten notes in it...

Oh and also the used EasiYo yoghurt maker that my mother received last week which was truly disgusting beyond belief - looked like it had been washed in filthy washing up water, had food residue and yoghurt encrusted on it and was covered in scratches...if they say they don't send out used goods, they're lying!

 

[sheepdog]

The problem lies within the warehouse returns procedure or lack of. I get the feeling that certain people are just returning to stock items rather than checking them. It is very easy for a pile of stock to be put in the wrong place or the warehouse picker decides it is a close enough match to complete the order. Ignorance to incompetance is a very fine line.

Here is an interesting question for you to ask: does QVC operate or have obtained an ISO certificate in warehouse processes? If the answer is yes, then there is a serious non-conformance happening.

BTW, I believe you can resell sold stock PROVIDED it remains unopened and unused. Though in my days of doing returns {not QVC} I never ever trusted the customer and opened everything including obviously manufacturer sealed boxes and doubled checked. Bizarrely, I consider my cynicism as a skill!

Though in fairness, it does say a lot about certain customers doesn't it?

 

[missmarple55]

Though in fairness, it does say a lot about certain customers doesn't it?

Not really.

Customers can use an item for 30 days and return it, it's not the job of that customer to return it in a condition for resale as that's not meant to happen.

Someone earlier on said about muddy Birkenstocks...so what?

The customer may have tried them outside and realised they were no good in the mud so returned them. That customer has done nothing wrong at all, it's QVC that shouldn't have sent them out again!

 

[qvcAddict]

The problem lies within the warehouse returns procedure or lack of.

No they are the scapegoat. This is not an occasional incident so must be a directive from above and not the 'error' it is labelled as. It also appears to be something happening more and more as times are getting harder and margins tighter.

Think bottom line is QVC are finding their returns policy tough on profits at a time when they are getting smaller anyway because of a combination of increasing competition during recession. Hence the famous returns letters multiplying and recycling returns.

If they are honest about it then there is nothing wrong with recycling certain items if processed properly and only sent out in new condition because that is what they are sold as - new goods not second hand.

 

[sheepdog]

No they are the scapegoat. This is not an occasional incident so must be a directive from above and not the 'error' it is labelled as. It also appears to be something happening more and more as times are getting harder and margins tighter.

......

My post said it was the lack of control AND then went on to say it could be warehouse returns staff. Either way, I was saying it was a process problem rather than identifying a particular party. Though in my experience it is a particular party who is at fault who through lack of training, incompetance or just several mistakes has done this. It happens unfortunately and only the end customer gets to find out.

The only way to rectify it is to make yourself heard and start asking questions of QVC. Another question to ask: are staff assigned to deal with returns agency workers or permenant ones?

 

[qvcAddict]

No I understood your post but I was simply saying that I don't think it's staff mistake at all. QVC categorically states that returns are NOT sent out to customers but we know they are and it's highly unlikely to be an 'accident' they use as an excuse.

QVC will continue just to apologise. If you buy a new item it is illegal for them to send you a second hand item. Simple. Report it as that's the only way they to make them sit up.

Analogy: I once found glass in an instore supermarket bakery item. I could have just complained to them and got an apologie, freebie, etc but that was not the point because it should not be happening. So I reported to Trading Standards and a full quality investigation was carried out.