The unsolicited goods act covers this, you didn't buy the product, and have to return it if requested (not sure if you have to inform them about it). However it has to be returned at their expense. If not asked for them back they are yours after 6 months, however you are not allowed to use them and you need to keep reasonable care of them during that time. This is clearly not the case with the OP, as the retailer would like them back.Originally Posted by filbert
(\__/) All I wanted in the end was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend. - NMA
(='.*=)
(")_(*)
Yes I must have worked in retail given that I am vehemently defending the company you have not named, so I'm obviously also an employee of that company
Again, re-read my post, I said I have, not that I did currently work in retail/customer service. I merely have a reasonable amount of experience from both sides of the argument. Because I am offering a counter-opinion does not mean I agree with what the company has done.
So you would send out an expensive item, to a customer trusting they would return a more expensive item you sent out by mistake.
A straight swap is a straight swap. The only difference is you do not seem to be able to comprehend that just because it does not take place at a time and location convenient to you does not stop it being a straight swap.
They have treated you with respect. You want a lack of respect go back in time and deal with overclockers, they were a piece of work to deal with. The company you have dealt with has offered a solution to you and you feel put out because you expect much more than they have to, will and should give you. That is your issue not theirs.At the end of the day, this company (IMO) isn't treating me with respect. Building a rapport with customers is what business is all about. You don't have a business without customers. At this point in time, I'm going to ship the product back, get a refund and buy somewhere else (preferably in store as per Finlays suggestion).
oolon, narcissistic in the sense of feeling that they should be treated better than everyone else because they are better than other customers
If it was my mistake and the person was a regular customer, you bet your behind I would. It's called good customer service, and I could be pretty sure that I would retain a good customer who spends money with my company regularly. That's usually a good thing when you're in business and it's actually not that unusual in the business world. Other companies manage it, I'm just disappointed this particular company doesn't.So you would send out an expensive item, to a customer trusting they would return a more expensive item you sent out by mistake.
Seems to me that you're the one who doesn't comprehend a straight swap (seriously it's not that dificult is it?). I would define a straight swap as a fair swap, which means both sides benefit. The current situation puts all the advantages in this companies corner. I get no advantage whatsoever from this scenario. Fair's fair at the end of the day. Straight swap = trust on both sides. The swap you're suggesting is heavily favoured on the side of the company.
My word you do make some mighty large assumptions don't you? I'm not even going to bother attempting to address this point. I've neither the time nor patience quite frankly.oolon, narcissistic in the sense of feeling that they should be treated better than everyone else because they are better than other customers
Thus far your posts have consisted of telling me how unreasonable I'm being, and the odd bit of name calling. Whilst I welcome a good honest debate, I'm looking for some help and advice. If you've neither to offer, kindly refrain from posting in this thread.
I don't see what's so 'funny' about this. The very nature of distance trading, mean that one party would have to take a 'risk' parting with their possession before the other. Usually, a customer wants the goods, and therefore make the first part of the exchange by paying first. Through repeated customs, the customer would begin to trust the retailer, and I would expect that it is somewhat mutual. So when the retailer makes a mistake, and the customer has the honesty of reporting that mistake, what's so wrong with having the company take some of that 'risk'? Alternatively, yes they could write off the loss, all while insulting the customer's honesty. And no, I do not think there is anything narcissistic as an honest customer who regularly trust the company by parting with their cash first, to expect that the company would do the same when it is to sort out it's own mistake.So you would send out an expensive item, to a customer trusting they would return a more expensive item you sent out by mistake.
Of course, the company also need to weight the chances that the customer is trying to a scam. That's why I think the manager ought to consider the customer's shopping history. Honestly, I would have concerns if the OP only spent say, £10 once before. But if he has already spent lot more..
gmarno (10-04-2010)
Erm ..... no.
There is no such thing as an unsolicited goods act. It's the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, but the consumer provisions have been replaced.
The previous provisions were repealed and replaced by para 24 of the Distance Selling Regs. If these goods were unsolicited (and they aren't) and unless gmarno is a business, then gmarno is not obliged to return them, period. It doesn't matter if they ask for them back and you don't have to wait 6 months. If unsolicited goods (within the meaning of the Regs) are sent, the recipient can treat them as an "unconditional gift".
However, in any event, they aren't unsolicited. They are merely a mistake, which is not at all the same thing.
gmarno, I sympathise with your position which, if I understand you correctly, is they they goofed and yet you are the one having to suffer the inconvenience, in the form of the hassle and the delay. And I agree. It's galling. And it's not exactly sensitive customer service.
As for advice about just flogging them on eBay, I'd advise reading the definition in s.1 of the Theft Act first.It seems to me that flogging goods you know were a sent in error meets each of the elements of that. I'd think it unlikely that such a charge would result, but as they now know you have the goods, failing to send them back is likely to result in an invoice at the very least.A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;
Were I in your shoes, and I was a s unhappy as you evidently are, I'd simply instruct them that I cancelled under the Distance Selling Regs (assuming you aren't a business customer) and that as the incorrect goods had been sent, the cost of collection is down to them. Get your refund, and buy elsewhere.
Two problems. First, the refund will take time and meantime, you're down by the value of the payment you made. Second, from the way you phrased your opening post, I suspect you are a business buyer, in which case, that won't apply. Probably the best you can achieve is to order the replacement, pay for it and get the refund when they get the original back. If you can't or won't agree to that, then I guess you'll have to put up with the delay, and simply never shop there again if you're that annoyed, which it seems is the decision you've already made.
It's not ideal, but in the end, it is simply the result of an honest mistake on their part.
gmarno (10-04-2010)
Also, as to why the company doesn't do a "straight swap" is most carrier companies don't offer this as a service, and even if they do have the provision, it's something that has to be setup on your contract before you even get started. What's more even then, 50% of the time they don't pick up the goods!
So yes, frustrating and annoying it may be, you are legally obliged to give them the wrong goods back and they are still legally obligated to fulfil their contract of sale. Personally I'd try and blag a small discount off your product for your inconvience or as a "reward" for your honesty, providing you haven't already gone off on one on their CS staff.
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
gmarno (10-04-2010)
Thanks the for the informative reply Saracen, it's much appreciated
It's a shame they couldn't do a swap at the door, but I guess that's life and I know what this particular company does when something goes wrong on their end.
I'll write a letter of complaint stating why I'm unhappy and just leave it at that (after the refund has gone through). I think Lucios suggestion of trying to blag a discount is a good one, but it's highly unlikely I'd ever use them again except in emergencies.
It also turned out they didn't have any commercial copies left in the company, and the sales guy was trying to push an educational version of the software on me (which I don't think he should be as I'm not a student/educational worker). Obviously an educational copy is in the market place for a reason, but he was repeatedly telling me it had the exact same EULA as the commercial copy. I know for a fact there are restrictions of use on the educational version but he was having none of it.
Either way I was polite but firm, and the guy wished me a good trip when we'd finished the conversation. Whilst there were some pretty abrasive replies in this thread, it's great to see that as a whole Hexus is a pretty friendly place to ask a question, and get some good information in the process.
Thanks for the help guys
Since they are messing you around and making their problem yours, I'd siggest cancelling the order completely and letting them know they can pick up the incorrect goods at your convenience. You are under no obligation to gom out of your way to make yourself available during the times their couriers are available for pick up, though I would offer to have it available for pickup at work.
Ignore finlay666. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about and seems to believe that it's good customer service to make the mistakes of retailers the customers problem. I don't care if he works in retail - it just shows how bad at his job he is
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
That all depends on perspective. I can see where a supplier is coming from in not wanting to send out the second copy on 'trust' but ..... there's another way of looking at it.......
Again, re-read my post, I said I have, not that I did currently work in retail/customer service. I merely have a reasonable amount of experience from both sides of the argument. Because I am offering a counter-opinion does not mean I agree with what the company has done.
So you would send out an expensive item, to a customer trusting they would return a more expensive item you sent out by mistake.
A straight swap is a straight swap. The only difference is you do not seem to be able to comprehend that just because it does not take place at a time and location convenient to you does not stop it being a straight swap.
They have treated you with respect. You want a lack of respect go back in time and deal with overclockers, they were a piece of work to deal with. The company you have dealt with has offered a solution to you and you feel put out because you expect much more than they have to, will and should give you. That is your issue not theirs.
.....
gmarno ordered goods, and paid for them in advance, in accordance with the companies requirements, in the expectation that it would meet it's obligation and sent the goods in the indicated time frame. And they didn't. I've had companies do this to me, and it's caused me problems because I was expecting that they'd do as they promised. For instance, a customer asks me to get x product, so I buy it and then tell them when I've been promised delivery. When I get let down, I have to disappoint my customer and typically, I get the blame, not the supplier whose mistake it was.
I've also had companies tell me stuff is in stock when it isn't, and have quoted on the basis that supply is available at that price. When it turns out that the supplier that promised supply can't meet that promise, I either have to buy elsewhere (and on occasion, make a loss as a result), or I have to let my customer down in turn, resulting in damage to my reputation with my customer. My customer, quite rightly, expects me to meet my commitments, and I expect those that supply me to do so too.
So ... while gmarno has done everything he is expected to, in paying for the goods and being their to receive them, the company has screwed up, causing him inconvenience. And yet, they expect to cause more inconvenience by sticking to their rigid policies despite the error being theirs.
I look at it like this. gmarno entrered into a contract, to purchase goods. The company failed to supply the goods that were paid for. So damn well supply them already.
As a separate matter, their mistake resulted in incorrect goods being shipped. He;s notified them of that and given the opportunity to collect, but it doesn't change the fact that they have not supplied the goods he ordered and paid for, and are now refusing to do so until they get their goods, sent by their mistake, back.
My attitude would be I want the goods I ordered and paid for. Period. We can correct their mistake at leisure, but I want MY goods ASAP, as I am due.
If I have a long-term, repeat customer, and especially one honest enough to come forward to tell me he's received goods to more value than he's paid for, yes. That latter fact strongly suggests an honest customer, does it not? Because otherwise, I stand a good chance of losing a good customer.So you would send out an expensive item, to a customer trusting they would return a more expensive item you sent out by mistake.
Many years ago, I bought quite an expensive product. It doesn't matter what. After about 2 months, it died. The shop did not have a direct replacement available, and the owner of the shop lent me his personal one until a replacement could be found. As it happened, it took several months to get. Eventually, he contacted me to let me know my brand new replacement had arrived, and I took his one, now about a year old, back and collected the new one. That is customer service. And the result was that I spent many thousands with him over about the next 25 years, even when I knew I was sometimes paying more than I needed to. I could have saved some (though not huge amounts) buying at discounters or in later days, online, but didn't because I felt I could trust him to look after me if there were problems. I also recommended him to countless others, because of the service.
Also, some years ago, I ordered an expensive laser printer (not the same company). By expensive, I mean about £4000. They sent the wrong one. When notified, the were terribly apologetic and had the correct one delivered next-day. Several weeks later, they got around to collecting the one sent in error. Again, good customer service, and again, from me at least, it resulted in good customer loyalty.
I don't know who gmarno's supplier is, and don't particularly want to know. But it does strike me that it's typical of the pile-em-high, sell-em-cheap mentality of many internet-based box-shifters. Some, like Scan, seem to take customer service pretty seriously (though you can't please all of the people all of the time, and some customers will rip you off given a heartbeat of a chance), but, boy, some others sure don't.
One reason I buy most of my computer bits locally, where I can, is precisely because of the core of this thread .... customer service. I'm lucky enough to have a local shop that, by and large over the years, has been reasonably priced, often matching internet sellers (for me at least), but WAY outstripping most of them on service. Even when I have to pay a bit more, I'd rather do that and be sure of service when I need it.
And that, I think, is gmarno's point. When he needed service, he got dumped on.
I've often said you can't tell much about a supplier when things go right (other, perhaps, than how often they don't go right), but you sure can get an eye-opening when they go wrong. If a supplier cares about their reputation ,and about lost customers, they (like Scan generally do) will put effort into sorting out the problems because that small percentage of times that things go wrong can make a HUGE difference to how your customers perceive you.
Treat me well, and I'll come back for life. Treat me badly, and I won't buy from you if you're the last supplier on earth. I'll go without first. I'll give you some chances, but screw up too badly, or too often, and I blacklist you permanently. And the reason for that, nearly always, is poor customer service.
gmarno has said he won't use this firm again, except for emergencies, and that's about where I'd be too. I'd be miffed with them, but not to the point that it'd be terminal. Tesco, on the other hand, annoyed me years ago. I had a problem, raised with with Customer Service at Head Office and they promised to look into it, and I never had the courtesy of hearing from them again. Well, as a result, I've not bought so much as a Mars bar in Tesco since. I now driv e past Tesco to get to Asda, or Waitrose, or Sainsbury, or even Morrisons on the next town, but the Tesco I can walk to? Like hell. And not because of the subject of the original argument, but because of the ignorant actions of customer services.
Do Tesco care about my little boycott. I doubt it. Do I care if they care? Hell, no. But every customer they lose, permanently, like this, reduces their turnover by a few grand a year. They spend lots of money to attract and keep customers, only for crappy customer service to undo all that. Some CS department.
And that is how damaging a lousy customer service attitude can be.
One online retailer I could name has had a lot of bad comment over the years. I have to say, in my personal experience from a limited (handful) of transactions it's undeserved, because despite a couple of problems, they resolved everything promptly and to my satisfaction. But nonetheless, all that negative comment still puts me off because while I might dismiss a few gripes as sour grapes, a constant stream of it leads me to suspect that there's no smoke without fire, so I haven't used them in years. Again, it's the corrosive effect of bad CS, or at least, reports of bad CS.
And that, I think, is why gmarno is right and you're wrong. The supplier screwed up, yet they expect him to suffer the inconvenience because of it. It would irritate me if they did it to me, and while I wouldn't go as far as permanently blacklisting them (yet), I sure would be looking elsewhere next time, if possible.
Congratulations on being unable to read, I bet your parents are very proud of you.Ignore finlay666. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about and seems to believe that it's good customer service to make the mistakes of retailers the customers problem. I don't care if he works in retail - it just shows how bad at his job he is
Just because I provide an argument does not mean it is my personal view, it means I am capable of understanding and appreciating balanced discussion
And if you bothered to learn to read he whole thread before posting you would clearly see I said I DID work in retail, not currently (and for the record I left for a better position at the time in a different sector with a very good relationship with my employer and an open job offer should I wish to return)
Saracen:
it may not be good customer service that I pointed out, but it is to the best of my knowledge within the law. Whether I have been a new customer or a regular customer with a retailer has little impact on my decision to take my business elsewhere in future should it happen to me.
I have had a few online retailers go above and beyond in service and I recognise this and will give them my custom, even if they are a little more expensive. It is customer loyalty. If a company treated me in an adequate manner I might not use them again
I am not saying I don't agree with what the retailer has done as a customer, as I have said before in the matter of a legal issue I believe they are acting within the law, which is what the thread title is after all, not whether we agree with how the company operates.
Really
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
Will everyone please dial back the sarcasm a bit. It does not help the thread. I may have quoted an example from Finlay, but this is not just addressed at him.
As far as I'm aware, they've acted perfectly legally too.
And, as you say, that was the initial subject, as per the title. But the OP has moved beyond that, as shown by his comments about how he feels about how he's being treated. It's also now covering customer service, as per the bits I quoted, likeandA straight swap is a straight swap. The only difference is you do not seem to be able to comprehend that just because it does not take place at a time and location convenient to you does not stop it being a straight swap.I'm not saying your wrong, Finlay. Merely that on subjects like customer service, there's more than one way to look at it. The company may be entitled to act as they have, and they may have reasons for doing it. But from the customer's perspective, it's high-handed, because he is being made to suffer inconvenience while they correct their mistake. Legal, it may be, but good customer service if they wish to retain customers, it ain't.So you would send out an expensive item, to a customer trusting they would return a more expensive item you sent out by mistake.
I appreciate there are (hence why I have been trying to provide an alternative view however many seem to take this as my personal view), however as always it's worth negotiating in a firm but fair manner. In cases like this I would if possible order a replacement then get a refund on the other item, ideally with some discount due to the inconvenience and as a regular customer.
I understand a mistake is a mistake and more could be done to rectify it, however there does not seem to have been much communication from the customer and supplier, and this is where it can fall down. Negotiation skills in this area are a very valuable skill, and if you don't like the service I would always suggest to speak to a more senior member of the team to try and resolve it, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
On the honey/vinegar front, absolutely. I entirely endorse that. If nothing else, going from honey to vinegar in your negotiations is easy, whereas it's next to impossible to go from vinegar to honey. The vinegar will always leave a sour after-taste. However, if the honey doesn't work, sometimes the vinegar is the only option left.
I agree about escalating, too. But that also presumes that they will put you though to someone more senior. Large call centres seem to have procedures or policies designed to prevent this. I had one insurance company point blank refuse to put me through to a manager, despite repeated attempts. Letters were ignored, faxes were ignored and phone calls met with an obstinate brick wall. Their attitude was "that's what we'll pay, and that's that. Like it or lump it." They didn't use that phrase, but it was the gist of their message. I ended up with a Small Claims Court claim, at which point, a manager magically became keen to talk to me and "resolve the problem". They paid what I had been asking for, and my extra costs, though the "smile" they wore looked more like a sickly grin.
In that case, honey failed, and vinegar worked wonders.
But I agree, try the honey first. For all I know, the OP did exactly that. And I can sympathise with why he's aggrieved that they screwed up, but expect him to be the one mucked about because of it.
Thanks for the replies everyone
In the end however, escalating to a manager wasn't going to do any good because it turns out they didn't have the product I wanted in stock anywhere in the company. They were trying to claim the educational version was the same as the commercial one and I should take one of those (at commercial price though). This is where the sales guy just gave up trying to help, because I said that I wasn't willing to accept the educational version due to its license restrictions. It didn't matter what I said to him, I even told him to check the website as the restrictions were on there.
I just told him to cancel the order and come pick it up as I wasn't going to take an educational version under any circumstances. Well, I sourced another copy of the software yesterday and lo and behold, it says in big black writing in the first few lines of the EULA:
"EDU versions are not allowed to be resold or transferred and can not be used for commercial purposes."
That seems pretty clear to me. I don't expect the sales guys to have intimate knowledge of every single product, but when a customer is telling him to look on the manufacturers website (as it's on there in black and white) and the sales guy won't, questions have to be asked. Whatever happens, I'm going to have to write to the customer service dept of this company and make sure they know that's going on. Selling educational licenses to non-educational persons (especially at full price) is going to cause someone a major issue in the future.
Personally, I'd feel inclined to let the software company know what one of their resellers is doing too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
