That letter again!

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

going back to the original theme of this thread, they are very keen to get people buying with the "no quibble" returns thingy, wafting on ad nauseum about how no high street store would let you do this especially in relation to ear rings and cosmetics. But no mention of the limitations of this much vaunted feature, just not transparent enough in my view. I did have a giggle at the idea of them trying to assess how much is too much re face cream etc, someone might have a bigger tham average face (or facial area in A Y beauty speak) and use more! or longer hair when it comes to shampoo use.
 
Glad all that sorted its worth remembering the written word isn`t like facing someone you know, no facial expressions or intination in the voice it just comes through on one level and because we don`t know each other personally we don`t know who is the joker whose the say it as it is or the serious type etc.
I hadn`t been telly shopping very long when i found this forum and I must say its saved me from making many a shopping mistake ..so thanks for that as well as the laughs along the way.
So a big sunny Saturday (((hug))) to all :)
 
If QVC were 100% up front about how the MBG actually worked, I doubt many people would have shopped with them as often as they have.
 
Well I think QVC are miss selling (spell?) as a "guarantee" is a "guarantee" and if they are going to say on air that a product can be used for 30 days and if you don't like the results just send it back for a refund. IF there are terms and conditions that apply then they should be put up on screen and the presenter should draw the customers attention to them. As some of you know I am a legal bod and I KNOW I am right about this. They would lose on this if a customer took them to a consumer organisation or reported them to whoever you complain about an advert to, and they would be told to change their ways.
 
You would think they would at least have to give a 'terms and conditions apply' type disclaimer out, wouldn't you?
 
Kat73 said:
Well I think QVC are miss selling (spell?) as a "guarantee" is a "guarantee" and if they are going to say on air that a product can be used for 30 days and if you don't like the results just send it back for a refund. IF there are terms and conditions that apply then they should be put up on screen and the presenter should draw the customers attention to them. As some of you know I am a legal bod and I KNOW I am right about this. They would lose on this if a customer took them to a consumer organisation or reported them to whoever you complain about an advert to, and they would be told to change their ways.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for clarifying what we have all been thinking and wondering Kat. I used to get all worked up about this, but just haven't the energy or willpower to battle with them. I am sure Trading Standards would say they have to point out the conditions of sale, as you said.

If the presenters did not talk so much garbage, and just explained the product, I am sure we would all be wiser shoppers.
 
I once bought Anne Dawson by mistake, she cost £9.99. When she arrived I decided to return her and when I phoned up they said I could keep her for free!!! :talking:
 
Vivalas said:
I once bought Anne Dawson by mistake, she cost £9.99. When she arrived I decided to return her and when I phoned up they said I could keep her for free!!! :talking:
Click to expand...

Did she look like a previous buyer had returned her?
 
I have just been having a look at their Terms and Conditions as shown on their website and they have covered themselves accordingly with regard to the amount of returns and account closure.

However, I still maintain that a copy should be sent out to customers and a disclaimer saying 'subject to our T&C's' should be shown on the screen. The presenters should not encourage people to overbuy with the intention of sending the unwanted items back as this could put people in breach of QVC's returns rate.

Here are the relevant Terms:

2.2 All orders placed by you are subject to acceptance by us. We may choose not to accept your order for any reason and will not be liable to you or to anyone else in those circumstances. *We may also close your account for any reason (including the reasons detailed in clause 9.3) and we will not be liable to you or to anyone else in those circumstances.*

9.3 It is our policy to contact and work with customers whose level of returns is very high. This is to ensure that our prices are not negatively impacted by the cost to QVC of dealing with an extremely high number of returns by a small minority of customers. If a customer continues to return an extremely high number of products to us, we reserve the right to close their account. If this happens the customer’s statutory rights will remain unaffected, orders accepted by us before the account has been closed will be fulfilled in accordance with these terms and individual product warranties will continue to be honoured in accordance with their terms.

Edit to add: They should also be clearer regarding the percentage rate of returns eg: 50% or whatever...
 
Last edited:
Kitee said:
9.3 It is our policy to contact and work with customers whose level of returns is very high. This is to ensure that our prices are not negatively impacted by the cost to QVC of dealing with an extremely high number of returns by a small minority of customers. If a customer continues to return an extremely high number of products to us, we reserve the right to close their account. If this happens the customer’s statutory rights will remain unaffected, orders accepted by us before the account has been closed will be fulfilled in accordance with these terms and individual product warranties will continue to be honoured in accordance with their terms.
Click to expand...

Which on the face of it is fair enough. Unfortunately, this is not how QVC chooses to put this into practise.

1. They don't make these T&Cs clear in advance of sales;
2. Presenters state broadly that viewers can buy and return as much as they want, with the sole proviso that it's within the 30 day MBG. If this is untrue according to QVC's own rules, then this IS mis-selling;
3. Sending a snotty letter indeed to customers who QVC thinks have returned "too much" is not "working with" them. For most people this would come right out of the blue, and as far as they're concerned they've been doing just what those nice and friendly QVC people have advised them to do. Suddenly, they're made to feel like criminals.

I don't know why QVC feels they have to gloss over the small print, but it's a nasty and underhanded way of doing business.
 
They proudly announce that you can even send Thornton's back if you decide you don't want them. I'd love to clear a box (within the 30 days, of course :wink:) and then see what happens when they get an empty box back, plus a note asking for a refund because I didn't enjoy them. Sadly, it would take me a lot longer than 30 days to eat a box of chocolates. Suppose I could share them out though. :wink:
 
Toril said:
They proudly announce that you can even send Thornton's back if you decide you don't want them. I'd love to clear a box (within the 30 days, of course :wink:) and then see what happens when they get an empty box back, plus a note asking for a refund because I didn't enjoy them. Sadly, it would take me a lot longer than 30 days to eat a box of chocolates. Suppose I could share them out though. :wink:
Click to expand...


send them here - i could eat them in 1 day. :mysmilie_5:
 
I could eat them in an hour. As long as they didn't include any white chocolates :puke:
 
The thing that really naffs me off about all of this (other than the presenters going on and on about "try it out and send it back if you don't like it") is that they don't appear to differentiate between faulty returns or clothes that don't fit and returns that are down to the customer not liking it. If something is faulty it should never ever be included in their calculation, and neither IMO should did-not-fit returns. Something that does not fit is the risk they run in operating a mail-order system rather than being on the dreaded high street.
 
charlie said:
The thing that really naffs me off about all of this (other than the presenters going on and on about "try it out and send it back if you don't like it") is that they don't appear to differentiate between faulty returns or clothes that don't fit and returns that are down to the customer not liking it. If something is faulty it should never ever be included in their calculation, and neither IMO should did-not-fit returns. Something that does not fit is the risk they run in operating a mail-order system rather than being on the dreaded high street.
Click to expand...

DF is particularly bad about encouraging viewers to purchase an item of clothing in all the colour options, get it home, try it on and then return the colours you don't want. Mind you, who would be mug enough to do that given the extortionate p&p costs? Even so, viewers should be warned that if they literally do this as frequently Ms Flint suggests we should, they are at risk of THE LETTER because the high level of returns count against them.
 

Similar threads

T
Gemporia - struggling financially?
21 22 23
Replies
453
Views
77,107
Ant7t
A
Brissles
the email
2 3
Replies
50
Views
11,466
ohnonotshoppingagain
ohnonotshoppingagain
S
I have had 'the letter' and am about to make 'the telephone call'....
2 3
Replies
58
Views
19,698
Mazza
Mazza
M
The fading star of Gems.
2
Replies
35
Views
28,661
mr tom
M
Flamenco
Detailed analysis of my QVC spending
2
Replies
38
Views
8,719
craftology
C

Latest posts

Back
Top