Was not told item was non returnable at pos

marywooyeah

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

As the post was written at 1:04 AM, I think that it's safe to assume that the actual exchange was done yesterday.

apologies, I thought it was 1:04pm!

Valli

Honeydog wrote: »

My point is that it is Christmas and stores who show a little consideration for their customers (in these diffcult times for businesses) might just get more custom through goodwill and being flexible than they will through rigidly adhering to pointless rules.

Will I buy anything from Dunelm? Nope. Will the OP? I doubt it. I bet a lot of others won't either after reading this thread.

The duvet wasn't opened. It was sealed. It was a gift. The OP just wanted a swap for a more expensive item. The store stood to lose precisely nothing by the exchange. They've lost a lot of goodwill.

I hope they go bust.

A harsh stance given that the store can (as can they all) refuse to exchange ANY goods which aren't faulty, but will allow certain goods to be exchanged. However I am pleased that common sense prevailed - as the goods were returned (for exchange) unopened and they have, indeed, been exchanged. But a reminder (I hope) to us all that, if we select 'incorrect' goods we might well have to bear the cost!

aldredd

xxsweetpeaxx wrote: »

And no they couldn't have had a double because it's a king size bed!

Not that big an issue - we used a double duvet on our kingsize bed for several years until we could afford to replace it & the bedding - and can hardly tell the difference.

Glad you got it sorted in the end though!

Honeydog

Valli wrote: »

A harsh stance given that the store can (as can they all) refuse to exchange ANY goods which aren't faulty, but will allow certain goods to be exchanged. However I am pleased that common sense prevailed - as the goods were returned (for exchange) unopened and they have, indeed, been exchanged. But a reminder (I hope)) to us all that, if we select 'incorrect' goods we might well have to bear the cost!

I think in this economic climate any store which does not do EVERYTHING it can to retain a loyal customer base deserves to go under.

They should all be instructing staff to do everything they can to make the customer's experience a good one. Especially in the case above where the store did not stand to lose out in any way at all by the exchange - in fact they stood to gain.

I know it all turned out OK in the end but was still stressful for the OP. I don't plan to use Dunelm any time soon.

Oliver14

Honeydog wrote: »

I know it all turned out OK in the end but was still stressful for the OP. I don't plan to use Dunelm any time soon.

Do you recommend a claim for compensation then?

As much as stores need to provide good customer advice they do not need customers who cost them money. Too many people don't take responsibility for their actions and expect retailers to lose out to correct their mistakes. People should think about there purchases before they buy and not make assumptions about the terms and conditions. Check them before you buy. The OP was lucky and the shop actually went above what they needed to in the end.

Valli

Honeydog wrote: »

They should all be instructing staff to do everything they can to make the customer's experience a good one. Especially in the case above where the store did not stand to lose out in any way at all by the exchange - in fact they stood to gain.

In a way I would agree with that. In the case highlighted by the OP where it was clear the package had been unopened the sales assistant could have called a manager who could easily have overidden the store policy. It's actually not all that difficult to be a helpful, co-operative sales assistant, especially if you are a natural 'people' person.

Honeydog

Oliver14 wrote: »

Do you recommend a claim for compensation then?

Why would they need compensation?

As much as stores need to provide good customer advice they do not need customers who cost them money. Too many people don't take responsibility for their actions and expect retailers to lose out to correct their mistakes. People should think about there purchases before they buy and not make assumptions about the terms and conditions. Check them before you buy. The OP was lucky and the shop actually went above what they needed to in the end.

Shops need customers. Otherwise they go out of business.

If Dunelm had a complete monopoly on duvets I would agree with you. But they don't.

It was a Christmas gift. Millions of people will have made gaffes over other people's gifts.

No one lost. Not the OP. Not the store. Not the recipients of the gift.

Sorry bored with this now.

Honeydog

Valli wrote: »

In a way I would agree with that. In the case highlighted by the OP where it was clear the package had been unopened the sales assistant could have called a manager who could easily have overidden the store policy. It's actually not all that difficult to be a helpful, co-operative sales assistant, especially if you are a natural 'people' person.

I think there is quite a difficult balance between being helpful v pushy.

Between being professional/efficient v sympathetic.friendly.

It is got wrong in far more places than it is got right. But that's a whole other topic for discussion.

NiallB

Honeydog wrote: »

I don't plan to use Dunelm any time soon.

I'm sure they'll miss you.....