What's reasonable? (Related to mistake re NIOD)

[neelia]

This was mentioned on the other thread on Niod but it actually is a wider issue ie what is reasonable for QVC to do when it makes a mistake and the item delivered is less (quantity/size wise) than they have told us.

They had a Niod item which had three items (heroes). Alison kept repeating during the programne (and not corrected by the NIOD gurst) that both items were 30mls and specifically that the details on the website were wrong. I am pretty sure this programme was also repeated on the QVC Beauty channel too.

When the items are delivered they only have 15mls each.

What do you think QVC should do?

They seem to be ignoring comments on FB. This morning I got a letter with a return label should I wish to use it. Do you think that that is enough?

Not implying that there is a right or wrong answer. I am just interested in what people think is ok.

So where do you stand on the spectrum from They have done enough to they should send out the extra 15mls for every item for every order.

Personally if it was just something said once and with no great emphasis, I would be veering towards the "enough" end. However the continued pushing of this as a great bargain and repeating that the details on the website were wrong and not corrected by the guest pushes me along towards the other end. At the same time, it probably wouldn't take much in terms of a voucher or something for me to think "fair enough.

What does anyone else think?

 

[stratobuddy]

I think they should give the extra.

If you see something in a shop, they don't have to sell it to you at all if there is an error.

But when you order something online at a certain size, and you receive a smaller size, I think you have a right for the larger size, not just to return it.

 

[Linwood]

This confusion happens quite often and we all know what other retailers would do about an error, but this is QVC and a return label with an apology is what they offer..you will not get a voucher!

 

[Tarketta]

I guess the problem is that even with only 15 mls delivered, given the prices that each of those items are normally sold for, it is still a very good price for all three, so because Q seems to operate outside of standard rules and regs, they can get away with fobbing you off with that as an excuse.

It's just a very poor way to run a business (and a website) and an excellent way to pee off your customers.

 

[shopperholic]

QVC know that the ratio of their customers who will stop ordering from them because of this is minimal to nonexistent, so there's no need for them to take a hit on this for the sake of good customer service and false advertising, so they will send you a pre paid label, apologise and forget all about it. If you really want answers then Advertising Standards Authority is the way to go, not QVC CS.

 

[Akimbo]

QVC is offering the remedy legally appropriate where it has misrepresented an item for sale - to set aside the transaction and refund the money for the return of the incorrect items, they'll send a postage label to cover the return postage. The buyer is restored to their position before the sale happened; being disappointed isn't covered. They don't need to do more so they won't. In terms of their turnover, even the meat fiasco won't have enough impact on future sales in other areas.

 

[Lemonpop]

QVC is offering the remedy legally appropriate where it has misrepresented an item for sale - to set aside the transaction and refund the money for the return of the incorrect items, they'll send a postage label to cover the return postage. The buyer is restored to their position before the sale happened; being disappointed isn't covered. They don't need to do more so they won't. In terms of their turnover, even the meat fiasco won't have enough impact on future sales in other areas.

What you say is true but it happens a lot on QVC

 

[Lemonpop]

QVC is offering the remedy legally appropriate where it has misrepresented an item for sale - to set aside the transaction and refund the money for the return of the incorrect items, they'll send a postage label to cover the return postage. The buyer is restored to their position before the sale happened; being disappointed isn't covered. They don't need to do more so they won't. In terms of their turnover, even the meat fiasco won't have enough impact on future sales in other areas.

What you say is true but it happens a lot on QVC

 

[Akimbo]

It certainly does, although they still must be making acceptable profit, and I've been told at a customer event that the vendors stand the cost of returns. In the recent Niod case it'll be Deciem that takes the hit even if it's the ineptitude of QVC staff that caused the mistake. QVC, seems teflon-coated.

 

[donna255]

I will say most of the blame will actually lay with NIOD. They must have supplied the demo bottles at 30mls in size and then sent the kit to QVC to sell on their behalf. QVC should not be the only one having the mud stick, the companies supplying the product are equal for the balls up. But QVC does not seem to check anything just go on air with AY shouting about the fabulous deals etc etc etc.

What Akimbo says is true, under consumer law you get a refund and end up in the same place you started. Now morally it is different. I remember some years back QVC did a major ball up with a super-size cleansing kit from Elemis, the price was £19+ and we went nuts on here spreading the word and buying. QVC did honour the price but we all got letters telling us it was a mistake but this time they would supply at the price offered. People have this strange idea that if a mistake is made price wise the company must honour it. No, it is an invitation to buy, but until the item is actually shipped to you or you pay at the till they can withdraw at the error price.

 

[shopperholic]

It certainly does, although they still must be making acceptable profit, and I've been told at a customer event that the vendors stand the cost of returns. In the recent Niod case it'll be Deciem that takes the hit even if it's the ineptitude of QVC staff that caused the mistake. QVC, seems teflon-coated.

Sometimes QVC buy the items and they take the hit, at least that's what a CS advisor told me when I asked why I was getting so many used items sent out to me as new, I said I should report you to (in this case Kipling) and she said "it was nothing to do with Kipling, that it was QVCs stock" I imagine that's why used goods are put back on the shelves and not sent back to the brands, if QVC can try and pass a second hand item past you and charge you full price, they will.

 

[maymorganlondon]

If they were advertising this in the "normal" way, you could demand the price/quantity quoted, if you have the evidence.

Not sure whether as a nonstop advertorial QVC is treated in the same way. But basically it should be covered under the legislation which replaced the Sale of Goods act - the Consumer Rights Act. I think they've carried over elements such as the fact the goods must match the description, and be fit for purpose. Many moons ago I worked for a company where the advertised price of something we were selling was wrong, and significantly lower than it should have been. It went to court where the judge found that any consumer who could show the advert could buy the goods at the advertised price rather than the price it should have been.

This mess-up is what you would expect from the slapdash way QVC seems to work nowadays. It also is symptomatic of the Deciem (the company behind NIOD) situation, where there are supplychain issues still being sorted out, and a level of chaos seen recently in the departure of their CFO and the Co-CEO.

QVC are supposed to be so sh*t-hot in the purchasing department, but does anybody ever think to quality check the parcels shipped into them, and ensure that the details published on their website and broadcast on their TV channel match the goods being sent out to customers? It seems that nobody can really be bothered, including their social media crew. If they have any further idea of becoming a more trusted retailer, they need to sort themselves out and start taking this sort of thing seriously. It's just not good enough to send out refund labels... get the bliddy details right in the first place so you don't have a refund situation occurring!

 

[Marina]

When I was sent one tube of alpha h instead of the duo I only received one and so did the rest of us. After a few phone calls and speaking to the manager I was offered 50% money back which made me happy. I think they should do it again as they will be losing a lot of money people opening and may be using the products and then returning. I guess the returns may be 90%+

 

[neelia]

Thanks for the answer folks. I did think fleetingly about Trading Standards but I reckon that they have covered themselves legally Being hard nosed I wonder how many items were ordered after Alison did her hard sell and how much they would really be out if they did some sort of gesture beyond a returns label.

As I said I find it more annoying because of Alison hammering home the sizes and being so emphatic that the website was wrong.

I'm not returning mine. I had another set on Waitlist which I cancelled so it us still with it but I just hope the dam thing takes away the from lines caused by this ��

 

[donna255]

Actually, the Advertising Standards Agency would be the people to report it too. AY over years said they cannot show a product if they did not have it in stock as it was false advertising. I would class this as false advertising.

 

[neelia]

Actually, the Advertising Standards Agency would be the people to report it too. AY over years said they cannot show a product if they did not have it in stock as it was false advertising. I would class this as false advertising.

Good idea. Thanks

 

[miss molly]

I would ask for my p&P back if you want to keep it, that seems fair and save you a few ££££.

 

[neelia]

HAPPY DAYS!!

Only fair to update. I did ring QVC and spoke to CS. I said I realised that this matter would be decided globally and not just for me but I did think QVC should do more than just the legal minimum and the points I made here about it not just being a one off mistake but the continued hard sell by Alison o the amazing value and saying the website was wrong and not corrected by NIOD guest. She said she would pass that back.

Not saying my call changed their minds but I suspect there were a few of us and it didn't do any harm.

Just got a letter to say that a £25 Refund will be given to each customer who is keeping the item.

I rang up to clarify that the £25 was for each purchase and not each customer ( I ordered two) and yes I will be getting £50.

Now the question is what is fair in terms of those customers who sent it back?

 

[donna255]

Good for you Neelia:mysmilie_378:

 

[neelia]

Thanks Donna. Double glad I didn't return it. The last I spoke to was very professional and diplomatic but I got the impression she agreed with me. ��