Not happy with Dunelm Mill refund 'policy'

liney

I'd have returned everything, waited patiently for her to go through the process and then said "Now i'd like to purchase X back with the credit note, and the rest back on the card" having then insisted they go through as two seperate transations.

We can all play silly beggers if need be.

BlueAngelCV

Seems ridiculous to me. I would be really irritated. Yes, if you're a regular customer then you probably could use the voucher but that's not really the point. As you paid the money you should be able to get it refunded in the same way (which was not by voucher).

Halloway

Cheer up, OP, it could have been worse. Dunelm Mill could have refused you a refund on the items about which you changed your mind. I think you were treated rather well.

looby-loo_2

I too would have been irritated but can see their point too.

pinkshoes

Personally I would return one of the other items worth at least £60, then re-purchase it using the credit note.

If their policy is to give refunds in the format in which the products were paid for, and you paid with 24% (£60) credit note and 76% (£190) cash, then surely your £80 refund should have been a £19.20 credit note and £60.80 cash?!

They have contradicted their own refund policy surely?!?!

supermezzo

I feel I should say here, in their defence, that Dunelm were extremely helpful a couple of months ago when my Father died. He had bought £x of things on his credit card online not long before he died. These were discovered long after they were bought/he died and when I rang head office and explained, the rang my local store for me, arranged a time when the manager they had spoken to would be around and then explained that they had arranged a time after the sale had finished for me to go and return the items, so as to gain the full refund, not part of it at the sale prices.
1st class service imo which is often sadly lacking these days.
Oh and yes, it was credit note but then it was almost 6 months later so that wasn't a great surprise. I think that in the OP's case, they wre perhaps just being a bit pedantic.