Q Talk

[Biftu]

I was just checking on a return and according to my records I was credited less than I should have.  I called customer service and they said I was charged $6.95 for the return and it was scanned.  That could not have been because I used my own label and paid $3.14.  She asked if I had proof and how much I paid, and I did.  When I told her she said she would credit my account.  Be sure to keep your receipts and check your returns carefully so this doesn't happen to you.

[Pearlee]

---

@Biftu wrote:

I was just checking on a return and according to my records I was credited less than I should have.  I called customer service and they said I was charged $6.95 for the return and it was scanned.  That could not have been because I used my own label and paid $3.14.  She asked if I had proof and how much I paid, and I did.  When I told her she said she would credit my account.  Be sure to keep your receipts and check your returns carefully so this doesn't happen to you.

---

I have posted about this before.  QVC routinely does this - I am concstantly calling there to be credited the S&H back since I paid my own.  This is "unjust enrichment" on QVC's part - charging people for the return label they haven't used.  No excuse - I've called them on it time and again and they keep saying they'll forward the issue to corporate but it never improves.  IMO a class action lawsuit is in order to stop this practice, since nothing else has.

[valentinebbw]

I second this, I recently had a return that they sent the wrong size and was told that they would waive the return fee but when I received notification it was short the return fee and an addtional $1 from the original price. I contaced customer service and they did make it right but still, since when do we have to watch the Q like a hawk?

[KYToby]

While I recognize that many of the posters on these boards are perfect and never make aany mistakes, I also recognize that, in general, QVC hires but mere mortal and mistakes hap[pen. 

This is not a case of "unjust enrichment."  These are simply cases of mistakes.  With the thousands of packages being handled daily by the warehouse, and almost all returns utilizing the prepaid labels, mistakes hppen -- particularly when warehouse staffing is maintained at minimum levels to reduce costs.

Although I do not returns scores of packages on a daily basis as some posters here apparently do, SI have never run into a situation where this mistake has occurred.  If I had, I am sure the issue would be handled quickly and appropriately as seems to be the case whenever it occurs.

Yes, as with all things, it is our own responsibility to keep up with our fiscal matters, and monitoring one's credits, is prudent and appropriate.  To accuse QVC of some sort of nefarious activities because of some isolted mistakes borders on the paranoid.

[NycVixen]

---

@KYToby wrote:

While I recognize that many of the posters on these boards are perfect and never make aany mistakes, I also recognize that, in general, QVC hires but mere mortal and mistakes hap[pen. 

This is not a case of "unjust enrichment."  These are simply cases of mistakes.  With the thousands of packages being handled daily by the warehouse, and almost all returns utilizing the prepaid labels, mistakes hppen -- particularly when warehouse staffing is maintained at minimum levels to reduce costs.

Although I do not returns scores of packages on a daily basis as some posters here apparently do, SI have never run into a situation where this mistake has occurred.  If I had, I am sure the issue would be handled quickly and appropriately as seems to be the case whenever it occurs.

Yes, as with all things, it is our own responsibility to keep up with our fiscal matters, and monitoring one's credits, is prudent and appropriate.  To accuse QVC of some sort of nefarious activities because of some isolted mistakes borders on the paranoid.

---

Keep in mind that many of us myself included have been shopping with QVC for a long, long time. And this never used to happen with the frequency that it happens now. Not even close. Also, when 'mistakes' keep happening to the benefit of the same party even though customers have called in numerous times it does logically beg the question if something is going on. 

[Kindaglitzy]

I agree that all shoppers need to keep an eye on their returns and report issues promptly. Have personally noticed that customer service reps are not as friendly as they use to be.

[nomless]

I don't understand how this mistake can happen: "we scanned your return label and the required return postage was deducted from your refund" in cases when I manually wrote the return label and paid postage myself up front.  I know for a fact there was nothing on the return label to scan.  There was only a hand-written address on the label.  When I called CS, they insisted I used their label and relented only when I told them their label couldn't have been on the package because I was holding it in my hand and offered to fax them a copy of it along with the receipt for the postage and insurance I paid.

This has happened to me a couple of times, but not recently.   

[Zita]

KYToby -- no need to be so rude and snarky!

[Pearlee]

---

@KYToby wrote:

This is not a case of "unjust enrichment."  These are simply cases of mistakes.  With the thousands of packages being handled daily by the warehouse, and almost all returns utilizing the prepaid labels, mistakes hppen -- particularly when warehouse staffing is maintained at minimum levels to reduce costs.

I completely disagree. Furthermore, QVC corporate has been on notice for years that this is going on   and apparently has taken either no, or ineffective, measures to stop this from happening, probalby because it's in QVC's favor. Furthermore,the QVC billing statement gives consumers a choice about which way to return - with the prepaid label or at their own expense.  QVC then needs to credit returns correclty, having offered this choice.

I don't think you have any statistics to back up that "almost all returns" utlilize the prepaid labels. Thanks for pulling that out of thin air though.   Furthermore, QVC can track the return package that used its label - why don't the warehouse folks simply check that to make sure the label wasn't used before the customer is charged for using it? Simple fix. My packages don't have return tracking info because I don't use return labels from Qto make returns unless the item is defective

Sorry, Toby, QVC would lose a lawsuit in my opinion.  It's been on notice for a long time that these "mistakes" are happening and has done nothing effective to correct the problem, only taken advantage of the financial windfall to QVC.  

You must be a QVC shareholder, Toby, to keep continually defending its faults

[Q4u]

For a "mistake" to truly be a mistake then on average there would be a 50-50 percentage ratio between mistakes for QVC and for the customer.  You only hear about these mistakes occuring to the benefit of QVC.  With ALL the mistakes being made in favor of QVC then mathmatically it would make sense that there's at least 50% of mistakes out there benefiting the customer.  Adding them all together (if we could) and you'd have one huge amount of mistakes happening.

I don't think that's the case.  I think that these mistakes are basically in favor of QVC.  If the customer complains then CS will take care of it, but if not, oh well.  I've seen this kind of business model before and it's definitely pro-company.