Just seen at the bottom of the screen on (one of the many) gardening shows today, that "your refund may be reduced in some cases". What does that mean then ?
Does it apply to half used skin care and cosmetics / food / worn clothing ?
John Lewis/Waitrose went down this path a good few years ago now. If you bought a product from Waitrose that you weren't happy with and took it back to the shop, not only would they refund you but they'd replace it free of charge. This policy got quietly dropped a few years ago now - probably because people were taking the piss with it. Equally, John Lewis are far more picky now about the condition of returns, and will attempt to reduce refunds or, in cases, refuse to give them in the item does not meet their 'acceptable return policy'. The problem is that these sort of policies are enforced without nuance or thought by bored shop-girls and people working on minimum-wage in warehouses who can't be arsed to actually check an item properly, read notes or explanations or do anything other than get the job done in the minimal time. Hence, when I had to return an item to JL because it was actually soiled return from someone else,
my refund was refused due to the item having been 'used'!! Had they read the note included with the item, or checked the notes left with the call centre, they would have realised this.
I have some sympathy for the Q where they are trying to dissuade and penalise the chancers who are just taking the piss. The ones who buy a frock, wear it to a couple of parties and return it a fortnight later with red-wine stains down it and smelling of cheap scent (the question as to why QVC's quality control and processes are so poor that this frock ends up being re-sent out as a 'new' item to another customer is another story). No - the problem for me is that their returns policy is not properly advertised, and is in too many cases misrepresented by the Presenters, just as Loveinamist says above. How many times have I heard a Presenter tell me that I can 'wear a garment, wash it, give it a proper 'test drive' - and if you don't like it, just send it back for a full refund'. So if I wear said garment and pull a thread on it, then accidentally wash it in a 60°C cottons programme when it should have been 30°C with two lines and end up shrinking it to a third of its size and run the dye out, can I still return it 'for a full refund'? Of course I can't - QVC will reduce or refuse my refund. But how is that 'giving it a full test drive - really trying it out'? After all, accidents happen, even with the most careful people. And how are people supposed to guess what QVC decides (often capriciously) is 'fair use' compared to what
they might reasonably consider is 'fair use'. It's all far too subjective and not properly defined.
QVC need to stop being so deceitful with this. If QVC wants to allow customers to try the items as the presenters describe, as part of their sales technique, then they need to accept that they're going to end up with a lot of damaged, well-used and unsaleable returns - and build the financial loss into their business model. Conversely, if QVC wants to control costs and implement a 'return condition policy', then they need to ensure that the Presenters are upfront about this and do not continue to suggest you you use items as you see fit and still be entitled to a full refund - as well as advertise this policy appropriately. What QVC
can't do is try to have their cake and eat it.
