ASA Complaint - Misleading Advertising

[Pinkpussycat]

I have lodged a complaint with the ASA against QVC's misleading advertising. My complaint covers how QVC portray their 30 day money back guarantee on air and their lack of transparency regarding their returns policy, which is of course intrinsic to their mbg. I want the ASA to force QVC to clearly state ON AIR that although they do offer a 30 day mbg it is not unconditional and if a customer's returns percentage is "very high" QVC may close their account. I also want QVC to state clearly on their website exactly what percentage of returns they consider to be "very high" and over what period of time this figure is decided. QVC's presenters peddle their 30 day mbg relentlessley on air and use it as an important selling tool and huge incentive for customers to buy but they are not honest about how they then punish customers who use it in the way the presenters say they can. I sought advice from the ASA helpline and they said my complaint was valid and it is now being investigated by them. If you also think that QVC are not beng honest and transparent about these matters please lodge your own complaint online here http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain/Online-Form/Step1.aspx If enough people take the time (about 10 minutes max) to do this then hopefully QVC will be forced by the ASA to change their ways.

 

[louise66]

Whilst I appreciate that people's experiences can differ, I have had nothing put positive reactions from QVC regarding all returns I have made. The 30 day mbg is, for me, a godsend and one of the main reasons I shop with the Q, because of the safety net it offers me. The customer service is, in my opinion, first class. I don't think they are over emphasising the mbg unjustly, rather promoting it.

 

[Pinkpussycat]

They are certainly promoting alright, they bang on and on about it ad infinitum. That is their perogative of course and it's a very effective sales ploy, but they also need to clarify the return policy condition attached to the mbg. I hope you are still overjoyed with QVC if they suddenly decide your returns percentage is "very high" and close your account.

 

[Caroleanne]

Over the years I`ve read many times how members have felt they have been treated badly with regard to returns with threats of closing accounts. I don`t think its unreasonable in those circumstances to request clarity as to just how much is too many!!

 

[Akimbo]

Well done Sue! I'll take the time this week to go online and lodge my own experience of "the Letter".

I appreciate the MBG too but there's certainly a verbal emphasis on it's "no quibble" aspect from presenters and they never mention the threshold of returns that may lead to their account being closed. Not all buyers have access to the online T&Cs so they need to quote them on air if they want to rely on them. The ASA make judgements on misrepresentations made in the sale of goods that I may never buy but I still appreciate them policing the claims shopping channels make.

 

[MrMault]

I think QVC should notify everyone that they have a Fair Usage Policy that applies to the MBG, like the majority of businesses that offer an 'unlimited' service.
I agree that the MBG is a godsend and the customer service is first class. Its a shame the QVC business model is so different to the rest of modern retail world and the people who use them are often penalised.

 

[Akimbo]

If a buyer returns over 50% of their order then QVC reserve the right to contact the buyer (the Letter) and may ultimately close their account if they don't lower their return rate. Setting aside any moral judgements about returning lots of stuff, the 30 day MBG as stated on air is sold as no-quibble and not limited to a quota. Since the MBG is a selling ploy then if qvc are misrepresenting this to the public then it's no different to saying a vacuum cleaner (like today's TSV) will work for 50 years.

Curiously when I got the Letter I asked them how many is too many? >50% I was told. However they couldn't or wouldn't tell me when the time period for the measurement ran. Nor could they say whether the total returns excluded faulty items or items never received, since these are all logged as "returns in My Account history. Since then we've all used the Distance Selling Regs to cancel an order rather than just "changing our minds within the 30 day period so I'd like assurances that DSR cancellations are not counted towards this quota because the DS regs are part of our statutory consumer rights and cannot be limited by the T&Cs of a contract of sale.

HTH

 

[Julius]

At the moment Alison Keenan is on, looking like Sandt from "Grease," selling a G-Tech "cordless vacuum cleaner." It is supposed to be "revolutionary." It is nothing but a glorified carpet sweeper! Nothing revolutionary about that at all! My grandmother had one years ago!

 

[Weathergirl]

Well done PPC. I have often thought that they are misleading buyers with their "no quibble" MBG. Yes...of course you are going to get your money back if you return but strings are attached. If people want to cite this ad nauseam every time someone raises this important issue then IMO it misses the point completely. They INDUCE customers to buy on a PROMISE that's it's ok to use a product for 30 days and return for a refund. To be a QVC customer you have to have an account. To threaten to close the account because customers take them at their word is bad practice. I have always said that the presenters...as agents for QVC should say at the very least on air that terms and conditions apply to the MBG and for more details the customer can either look on the website or ask the UK based award winning call centre.

 

[PJ.]

I have lodged a complaint with the ASA against QVC's misleading advertising. My complaint covers how QVC portray their 30 day money back guarantee on air and their lack of transparency regarding their returns policy, which is of course intrinsic to their mbg. I want the ASA to force QVC to clearly state ON AIR that although they do offer a 30 day mbg it is not unconditional and if a customer's returns percentage is "very high" QVC may close their account. I also want QVC to state clearly on their website exactly what percentage of returns they consider to be "very high" and over what period of time this figure is decided. QVC's presenters peddle their 30 day mbg relentlessley on air and use it as an important selling tool and huge incentive for customers to buy but they are not honest about how they then punish customers who use it in the way the presenters say they can. I sought advice from the ASA helpline and they said my complaint was valid and it is now being investigated by them. If you also think that QVC are not beng honest and transparent about these matters please lodge your own complaint online here http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain/Online-Form/Step1.aspx If enough people take the time (about 10 minutes max) to do this then hopefully QVC will be forced by the ASA to change their ways.

Fantastic idea and I totally agree with you they are downright dishonest proclaiming the virtues of the MBG then threaten customers who do. Nice one Q.

PJ

 

[Evie]

One of my main concerns with QVC is their insistence that they do not send out returned items. Oh yes you do QVC!

 

[Akimbo]

just to add, they also couldn't tell me how long the account's level of returns would be monitored, so I used the example of my husband's account. He's only bought 3 items and 2 of them had been returned - one faulty within 12 months and the other not suitable under the MBG. This clearly hadn't been flagged as qualifying as 66% return rate. They also couldn't tell me what proportion of my returns were explained on the return slip as "changed mind" or in some way unsuitable even though I had always given a reason. It sounded to me as though they don't record these reasons and couldn't separate faulty items, wrong item received, items that didn't match the hype of the TV sales patter, items returned by the courier as undelivered for any reason or those cancelled under the DSR. I don't have a problem with CS contacting me to ask if there was a problem causing me to return lots of items but the tone of the Letter and subsequent phone call was quite aggressive. In the early days I ordered quite a few garments which turned out to be wrongly sized, naff quality, over-priced or completely mis-sold by the presenter. In response to my observation that imho polyester isn't a "luxury" fabric and that often the sizes aren't given early enough in the presentation of a garment I was simply sent a photo-copied list of sizes from a few of the ranges back then (none of which I'd bought clothes from..Denim & Co, Michele Hope. etc).

I would assert that DSR cancelled items, faulty items, mis-sold items should never be included in the tally of returns. Only the "changed my mind" ones should count otherwise they're saying you should be lumbered with sub-standard, wrong-sized items to keep the right side of their quota.

BTW there's no mention of the % quota or the time period taken for the measurement of our returns. Simply moving the goal-posts can dramatically alter the data: say you haven't ordered a sausage since New Year but there's a new jewellery or fashion line in March which looks good, and bigged up by the presenter you order 6 things which catch your eye. Sadly the only 2 of the items fit but you dispute the quality for the price paid and return them all. Should the monitored period start from Jan 1st you're off to a very poor start. However if it included 13 xmas presents you ordered and kept in November the previous year then you're not exceeding you returns quota. The thing with bandying around stats is that they need to be seen in a clear and predictable context.

They wouldn't answer my query about the total value of items kept versus value of items returns: if I ordered and kept a TV for £700 but return a handful of £10 items from Last Clicks would I be in trouble? No one this side knows, do QVC?

Finally, I'd like to mention again that it is the vendors, not QVC who stand the cost of returned items. QVC lose their share of the profit for that returned item and their admin costs entailed but as we all know, most buyers lose the original postage paid and also have to stump up the return costs themselves so lets not feel too sorry for QVC.

 

[Akimbo]

Oh what a rant! But when I think how many thousands of pounds I've spent with QVC, regardless of the returns, it was slap in the face when I got the Letter.

 

[Gemma1]

Well done Sue. It's about time Q were taken to task about this.

 

[Julius]

I don't think QVC will tell you about their policy, Sue. I expect they will try to keep quiet about it in order that they may cherry-pick which customers they ditch and choose. So the annoying Enids that repeatedly return their Northern Nights will be given the heave-ho!

 

[Gemma1]

I don't think QVC will tell you about their policy, Sue. I expect they will try to keep quiet about it in order that they may cherry-pick which customers they ditch and choose. So the annoying Enids that repeatedly return their Northern Nights will be given the heave-ho!

They might not tell Sue, but I don't think they will be able to keep the info from the ASA.

 

[Pinkpussycat]

just to add, they also couldn't tell me how long the account's level of returns would be monitored, so I used the example of my husband's account. He's only bought 3 items and 2 of them had been returned - one faulty within 12 months and the other not suitable under the MBG. This clearly hadn't been flagged as qualifying as 66% return rate. They also couldn't tell me what proportion of my returns were explained on the return slip as "changed mind" or in some way unsuitable even though I had always given a reason. It sounded to me as though they don't record these reasons and couldn't separate faulty items, wrong item received, items that didn't match the hype of the TV sales patter, items returned by the courier as undelivered for any reason or those cancelled under the DSR. I don't have a problem with CS contacting me to ask if there was a problem causing me to return lots of items but the tone of the Letter and subsequent phone call was quite aggressive. In the early days I ordered quite a few garments which turned out to be wrongly sized, naff quality, over-priced or completely mis-sold by the presenter. In response to my observation that imho polyester isn't a "luxury" fabric and that often the sizes aren't given early enough in the presentation of a garment I was simply sent a photo-copied list of sizes from a few of the ranges back then (none of which I'd bought clothes from..Denim & Co, Michele Hope. etc).

I would assert that DSR cancelled items, faulty items, mis-sold items should never be included in the tally of returns. Only the "changed my mind" ones should count otherwise they're saying you should be lumbered with sub-standard, wrong-sized items to keep the right side of their quota.

BTW there's no mention of the % quota or the time period taken for the measurement of our returns. Simply moving the goal-posts can dramatically alter the data: say you haven't ordered a sausage since New Year but there's a new jewellery or fashion line in March which looks good, and bigged up by the presenter you order 6 things which catch your eye. Sadly the only 2 of the items fit but you dispute the quality for the price paid and return them all. Should the monitored period start from Jan 1st you're off to a very poor start. However if it included 13 xmas presents you ordered and kept in November the previous year then you're not exceeding you returns quota. The thing with bandying around stats is that they need to be seen in a clear and predictable context.

They wouldn't answer my query about the total value of items kept versus value of items returns: if I ordered and kept a TV for £700 but return a handful of £10 items from Last Clicks would I be in trouble? No one this side knows, do QVC?

Finally, I'd like to mention again that it is the vendors, not QVC who stand the cost of returned items. QVC lose their share of the profit for that returned item and their admin costs entailed but as we all know, most buyers lose the original postage paid and also have to stump up the return costs themselves so lets not feel too sorry for QVC.

You have highlighted some very valid points Jude, all of which I have recently raised with QVC myself, initially with their finance department and ultimately with the CEO’s office. Reason - MY ACCOUNT WAS ARBITRARILY CLOSED ON 29[SUP]TH[/SUP] MAY WIITH NO WARNING. The first thing I knew about it was when I tried to place an order online and I got a warning message at the top of the page that said there was a problem with my account and to ring customer services. At that point I could still view my account history and I saw that two waitlist orders had been cancelled so I knew that my account had been doctored. I rang CS and was told that I could no longer order from QVC but I didn’t bother discussing it with them and asked to be put through to the dept that had closed my account and they eventually caved in and transferred me to the finance department. I had quite a discussion with James Churchill who tried to tell me that QVC had ‘worked with me’ over my returns but this was untrue. I did receive THE LETTER in September 2012 which highlighted my returns rate as being 59%, however there was no mention of the time period this covered, and it went on to say my account would be monitored for the next 60 days and if there was no improvement it may be closed. This was all very ambiguous and nobody called me to discuss it so I was extra careful with my ordering and heard nothing more so naturally I assumed my account was now satisfactory. To be honest it was a bit of a shock that they had closed my account so suddenly without making any contact first so I emailed the CEO, Dermot Boyd to complain. I received a phone call pdq from his office but QVC were still adamant they had ‘worked with me’ and recited a list of ficticious letters they say they have on file going back as far as 2009!! All I can say to that is it’s a load of old bollox as I certainly did NOT receive any of them. </SPAN>

At this point I still had quite a few items still under the 30 day mbg period so I returned the whole ****** lot of them which amounted to a lot of money but to make matters worse QVC then deleted my account history so I was unable to see which had been received back and so didn’t know which of my refunds had been actioned. I asked James Churchill if he could reinstate my history on a ‘read only’ basis so I could check it myself but he insisted this was impossible to do and sent me an excel spreadsheet in pdf format which I had to keep asking to be updated, which was difficult to view and time consuming to check. </SPAN>

Quite frankly I’m not sorry my account has been closed as it will save me wasting any more of my money with QVC but I am ****** angry about the way they did it. The final insult was when they debited my credit card for £302.95 TWO WEEKS after they had closed my account for a backorder they had forgotten to cancel. I was absolutely fuming and a very sheepish Chris Pearse in the CEO’s office apologised profusely and sent a prepaid label by 1st class post for me to return the item, how ironic. To be fair he did arrange an immediate refund but as far as I am concerned QVC had absolutely no right to take my money in the first place. I have still not received a satisfactory explanation as to how my credit card could still be used after my account was inactive and I still want to know how long QVC hold my credit card details??

Oh I forgot to mention that I received a call from a different bod in the finance dept last Friday and they have found a way to reinstate my account history after all on a read only basis which is exactly what I asked them to do three weeks ago.... </SPAN>

 

[jaynebelinda]

One of my main concerns with QVC is their insistence that they do not send out returned items. Oh yes you do QVC!

Especially when you receive one with the return slip still in it, which has happened to me.

 

[Nutsville]

Another point which has led to my account being suspended, beauty MBG. I had a new, well to me, item and AY clearly stated to use most of it to see if it suits. Well I used it properly for three weeks, but wasn't impressed especially for the price. I returned it with only about 1/4 left. Imagine my surprise when instead of refunding me, it was returned to me! When I rang CS I was told that I had used it excessively, or decanted it and as I had not returned more than 50% remaining I didn't qualify under the terms of the MBG. I've been a loyal member with low returns for 15 years and now feel totally shat on.

 

[donna255]

Good for you PP.

Okay I have never received the letter(don't order that much), and it was only when I started reading QVC US community board I discovered it existed!!!!! Of course on there the sycophants came out in force telling people they ordered too much(are you a hoarder?), time wasters, if they went into a store and shopped it might be better. In other words why don't you bugger off and shop elsewhere, the sun shines out of QVC's arse.

Then the complaints about accounts being closed started appearing on the board. Again the same sycophants came out, you must be the problem don't order and send back. People trying to explain it was bad sizing, quality issues etc. The hosts encouraging them to order more than one and to try on. Nothing was taken into account by QVC, a return is a return. So broken and faulty products still counted towards the returns.

Jump to last year and on QVC UK FB Page. Suddenly we the customers found out with the beauty products you actually could only try a certain amount in the 30 days. Hey, they even had a formula of how much a customer will use in that time period. Mr.Spock has left Star Trek and now works at QVC. Oh so what happened to the hosts and the use it and send back the empty pot and QVC will take it back. So now the customer who buys beauty products needs a advanced maths degree to make sure they do not fall foul of that one.

The jewellery auction channels now must put in small print on the bottom of the screen the disclaimer about how the start price does not actually reflect a true value. I believe they were forced to do that after complaints to the ASA. Before that some customers did actually think that ring was worth £6.000.00 and they bought it for £30!

Or the broadband providers and the fair usage policy that no one knew about until the went over and got a bill. Again the small print has to be shown, even though they still use the words unlimited.