Homebase - case for compensation

uktim29

smcaul wrote: »

Most consumers get stroppy because the hard earned money they have used to purchase goods or services is being taken from them, more often then not by un-trained staff who have little or no knowledge of consumer law and rely on their companies T&C's which are in ADDITION to the SOGA not instead of it!

Well at least I manage fine everywhere!

uktyler

smcaul wrote: »

When someone in the store looks at how much they have had to shell out in compensation/gestures of goodwill they will then look at why. Then things change and the shops get better, which is good for the shop and good for the consumer.

So all the shops should pay compensation and goodwill for things that might not even be their fault?

If the store cannot get if from the supplier they cannot pass it on to the customer. Likewise customers often buy things that don't fit/don't look right or they just don't like, and then take them back.

If every one with a problem or issue received compensation/goodwill the cost of every product would go up, tell me, how that is good for the customer?

smcaul

uktyler wrote: »

So all the shops should pay compensation and goodwill for things that might not even be their fault?

Would you like to point out exactly where I said that?

uktyler wrote: »

If the store cannot get if from the supplier they cannot pass it on to the customer. Likewise customers often buy things that don't fit/don't look right or they just don't like, and then take them back.

Ah, right, so let me get this straight then, we as consumers should foot the bill for shops buying and then supplying poor quality goods, or in some cases not supplying goods at all!! That's passing the buck somewhat is it not?

uktyler wrote: »

If every one with a problem or issue received compensation/goodwill the cost of every product would go up, tell me, how that is good for the customer?

If everyone who has been inconviencied by a stores failing got it then the stores would soon sort out their suppliers and internal policies. What you have to remember is that many large stores already have penalties in place for their suppliers. Take Tesco for example, if a supplier delivers late to their warehouse then they refuse the load and charge the supplier to redeliver!! Parcelforce have a delivery guarentee with many large customers, if items are not delivered on time then they do not pay for the delivery - how many of the consumers actually see this refund? Yet the likes of Amazon etc all have/had it in their contracts, they don't even need to raise a complaint, it happens automatically at the end of the month. I could go on.

basically what the shop assistant sees is very little of what actually goes on, large companies hold their suppliers to ransom far more then consumers hold retailers.

When you have access to view the whole supply chain you see things in a very different light!

uktyler

smcaul wrote: »

Ah, right, so let me get this straight then, we as consumers should foot the bill for shops buying and then supplying poor quality goods, or in some cases not supplying goods at all!! That's passing the buck somewhat is it not?

No, the OP purchased something that was faulty, they could of returned it for a refund, but did not. The store had to chase the supplier to get it.

Customers foot the bill for everything, your knowledge of supply chain should of taught you that. We pay for the manufacture, supply, distribution, shop staff and customer service.

It is not in the stores interest to sell faulty items, as these get returned, costing the store staff time, and as you know, time is money. Where has the customer paid for something they did not get? They have a complete bathroom now, and a hundred quid on top.

Things go wrong, get broken, run out of stock. It happens in retail but if every time it happened the stores gave away money we would all end up paying.

stugib

uktim29 wrote: »

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Do you follow a bloody flowchart when you're posting? Can always rely on the 'Pot, Kettle, Black' line when the spotlight gets turned on you.

uktim29

stugib wrote: »

Do you follow a bloody flowchart when you're posting? Can always rely on the 'Pot, Kettle, Black' line when the spotlight gets turned on you.

Some people don't seen to be aware of their own attitude, I know exactly what i'm doing.

uktim29

uktyler wrote: »

No, the OP purchased something that was faulty, they could of returned it for a refund, but did not. The store had to chase the supplier to get it.

Customers foot the bill for everything, your knowledge of supply chain should of taught you that. We pay for the manufacture, supply, distribution, shop staff and customer service.

It is not in the stores interest to sell faulty items, as these get returned, costing the store staff time, and as you know, time is money. Where has the customer paid for something they did not get? They have a complete bathroom now, and a hundred quid on top.

Things go wrong, get broken, run out of stock. It happens in retail but if every time it happened the stores gave away money we would all end up paying.

You'll be better off talking to a brick wall!

deanos

If you bought the shower cubicle on a non 10% day then you are probably only getting £40 compensation as it would have cost you £540 on a 10% day :cool:

smcaul

uktyler wrote: »

No, the OP purchased something that was faulty, they could of returned it for a refund, but did not. The store had to chase the supplier to get it.

Customers foot the bill for everything, your knowledge of supply chain should of taught you that. We pay for the manufacture, supply, distribution, shop staff and customer service.

It is not in the stores interest to sell faulty items, as these get returned, costing the store staff time, and as you know, time is money. Where has the customer paid for something they did not get? They have a complete bathroom now, and a hundred quid on top.

Things go wrong, get broken, run out of stock. It happens in retail but if every time it happened the stores gave away money we would all end up paying.

Had the store sorted the issue out straight away in a timely manner then the likelyhood of the OP asking for compensation, or anyone else asking for it, is minimised to almost non existant levels.

It is because the complaint was drawn out that it becomes a problem. So what could be so difficult about the store replacing a faulty part? Not much in real terms, but no doubt the store has xx amount of internal policies to deal with because of it, the CS assistant no doubt has to raise xx amounts of forms, in their 8hr shift they probably can't be bothered so it gets left to someone else, they didn't take the query in the first place place so "not their problem". So what was quite a simple task that would have passified the customer has now grown into a major problem due to apathy.

No problems ever need to get to this stage, it is down to conflict resolution, but most first line CS staff are not trained in this to even a lesser degree. Why? Because it is cheaper for the stores to put the minimum wage weekend staff on the CS desk to make it look like they are dealing with complaints. But in reality they can't deal with anything more then the basic complaints.

Look at the stores who do do it well. John Lewis for example, Their staff are normally well trained not only in the goods of the department they work within but also of how to reslove customer complaints. You very rarely hear people wanting compensation from JL, because the issues are dealt with long before it gets to this stage.

So if complaints like these were dealt with properly then no compensation would be needed, the store retains customers, the customers are happy - everyone wins. Not a difficult concept is it, it's apathy and lack of ownership to problems that causes issues.

bella165

intresting read