Need to rant !!

[Nicky-j]

Well I'm sorry to dissapoint all of you but I had a manager call me back this afternoon full of apologies for the way I had been treated & telling me that I was perfectly correct in what I had said. BTW did you all know that calls are now being recorded? About 1 in 5 & luckily mine was recorded so he heard what had happened.

I also got the P&P back on both items.

Having checked all this out with Trading Standards months ago I was aware of what I was doing.

I would imagine most people were pleased for you that you got that money back, not 'disappointed' that you were 'perfectly correct'. I don't think that anyone was trying to have a battle about it LOL!
I am sure that the line manager was very, very apologetic if he heard a recording of a member of his staff being less than understanding, as he should be. I have to admit I am intrigued, however, that a mention of 'aiming' for a certain date could in anyway mean that they guarantee it and bind them in a contract and I wonder whether the fact that you were clearly prepared to argue your corner until they gave way might have had some bearing on it? If a company is legally bound by the word 'aim' into a guaranteed contract then I would imagine thousands of companies across the country could be on very shaky ground and it seems words, however carefully thought out, don't always mean in law what they mean in the rest of the world!

 

[lilian]

The reason I have to sign for my stuff is because many years back I was having parcels stolen off my doorstep when I was at work during the day. I had a terrible problem to prove to QVC that I was not pulling a fast one & Trading Standards became involved. It was then agreed that I should sign for everything.

 

[Lottie]

If the parcels are delivered by Hermes then there will be a record via the HHT when they were delivered. I was about to add that QVC insist on sigs when items have disappeared after delivery, but Lilian beat me to it

Well done on standing your ground :happy:

 

[Akimbo]

Whether or not QVC "aim" or guarantee their delivery times they do rely on it as a selling point; listen to any presenter and you'll hear them banging on about delivery times. They haven't upgraded their Royal Mail post to first class so any improvement in delivery time is down to RM not QVC surely? Misrep in sales spiel isn't accepable.

Jude x

 

[Akimbo]

The reason I have to sign for my stuff is because many years back I was having parcels stolen off my doorstep when I was at work during the day. I had a terrible problem to prove to QVC that I was not pulling a fast one & Trading Standards became involved. It was then agreed that I should sign for everything.

I had the same scenario; I've had to sign for everthing ever since.

Jude x

 

[lilian]

I had the same scenario; I've had to sign for everthing ever since.

Jude x

Thats good to hear Jude. I was made to feel that they had made an exception in my case.

 

[bags]

My courier is excellent she's delivered for ages with Next parcels.
Whilst we were away last summer it must have been a stand in my parcel was thrown over the side gate and a card pushed though.
Days later my neighbour noticed the bashed wet box and reached though the wrought iron gate to retrieve it.
Goodness knows how I would have got on if he wasn't an honest ex policeman.

:thinking:

 

[Nicky-j]

I'm sure I'm not the only one still a bit curious about just how much QVC were liable for posting within the 'aimed' for 3-5 working days. Anyway, I mentioned this thread to an acquaintance of mine who used to work for a local authority trading standards department. He said that he was as confused about this as some of us were, so suggested that I contact the government's consumer direct website. So I did. I have just received a reply. It was quite detailed regarding the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 so I have just copied (below) the relevant bit.

'The Distance Selling Regulations state that a trader has 30 days from order, in which to deliver goods unless a longer time period has been agreed.
If a trader fails to deliver within this time, the contract is cancelled and they then have a further 30 days to refund you. Consumers can also cancel the contract in writing for any reason at any point until 7 working days starting from the day after the goods arrive. In a situation where you pay a trader to deliver on a certain day (i.e. if you pay more for next day delivery than standard delivery) you would be able to hold them in breach of contract if they fail to deliver on the date you have paid for and claim the difference in cost between standard delivery and next day delivery.'

So, as far as I can see, providing they do deliver within 30 days, and we have not paid more delivery charge to have a speedier delivery, then QVC are not actually liable to refund the postage. So I don't think the rest of us have grounds for trying to get a refund!I don't know whether Lilian, as well as signing for her parcels, pays a little extra to get a speedier delivery, but if not, I think she did rather well to get a refund of the postage. Well done Lilian!

 

[Rentochops]

Their CS are great compared with other places, if I am going away I never place any orders for at least a week beforehand. QVC did used to say 5-7 working days, perhaps they would be as well ti go back to that. Or do what IW do and just never promise a time frame, as 21 days could put you off buying!

 

[icedupsnowqueen]

I have to mention that I have on quite a few times over the last 15 years obtained my P&P back from QVC when they have failed to deliver on time. I think it used to be 5 - 7 working days in the beginning, and if they went over that I phoned and complained and always got my postage back. Last time was last Oct when they took 10 days to deliver a package, and again no problems, I recieved the P&P back.

 

[Nicky-j]

It would seem then that, on occasion, QVC will refund the postage, but that in law they are not required to do so. That would seem to fit both scenarios, and to suggest that at least something that QVC does is because they want to, not because they have to!