BHS returns policy - contact email address for CEO

peachyprice

Pollycat wrote: »

I wonder if the OP actually remembers word-for-word what the CS woman said or if it was the fact that he/she was surprised that there wasn't an immediate refund forthcoming that triggered the 'she doesn't believe me' feeling.

I'm not saying the OP isn't telling the truth but I'm not sure that I would remember exactly what was said to me.
in fact, I went to Tesco CS yesterday and I wouldn't be able to say with any certainty what words were used. But maybe that was because I wasn't questioned about my (trivial) complaint.

Just a thought.

Oh, I'm sure if the sales assistant had said anything really rude OP would have told us

peachyprice

hollydays wrote: »

Now your misreading me, I didn't say it was offensive.
But she's not qualified to test and bearing in mind the customer already told her it wouldn't boil, it's less than tactful, and not how good companies behave.

I didn't say you said it was offensive, but OP clearly did find it offensive, so much so that she came home and started a thread about it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree whether it's good business practice to actually test an item that a customer claims is faulty, I really can't see the problem with it, you obviously can.

mad_dr

peachyprice wrote: »

But I'm really struggling to understand how 'I'm taking this out the back to test is doesn't boil' is offensive, and how it could have been rephrased to be less so.

Because the phrase above indicates that the employee considers that the OP is either:
1. Correct
2. Lying
3. Stupid

Good customer service and common sense suggests that it's not sensible to show that you think the customer MIGHT be lying or stupid (even if you DO think that!)

Outwardly, the employee should have indicated that there's no doubt that the customer is correct, even if they then went and tested the kettle behind the scenes having asked the customer to wait a few moments.

If company policy is to doubt/question the customer's account and to validate all claims of faults, they ought to make it clearer in their refund policy so that customers can be prepared and not feel that their honesty is in question.

In this case, the employee could have simply said "I'm absolutely sure that you're right and that the kettle is faulty but I do just need to give it a quick check before I issue your refund - would you mind waiting a few minutes?"

Pollycat

mad_dr wrote: »

In this case, the employee could have simply said "I'm absolutely sure that you're right and that the kettle is faulty but I do just need to give it a quick check before I issue your refund - would you mind waiting a few minutes?"

Maybe the SA did say that but the OP could have taken it to mean 'I'm taking it to the back to check that it doesn't boil'.

Pollycat wrote: »

I wonder if the OP actually remembers word-for-word what the CS woman said or if it was the fact that he/she was surprised that there wasn't an immediate refund forthcoming that triggered the 'she doesn't believe me' feeling.

mad_dr

Pollycat wrote: »

Maybe the SA did say that but the OP could have taken it to mean 'I'm taking it to the back to check that it doesn't boil'.

Possibly but that's pure speculation. The OP's account (which we have no reason to doubt) seems quite clear: "[the] store assistant said she was taking into the back to check it wouldn't boil!"

Pollycat

mad_dr wrote: »

Possibly but that's pure speculation. The OP's account (which we have no reason to doubt) seems quite clear: "[the] store assistant said she was taking into the back to check it wouldn't boil!"

You're obviously a lot more naïve than I am about what posters actually state was said/ happened.

It may be speculation, it would be nice if the OP came back and clarified if what was written in the first post was word-for-word.

mad_dr

Pollycat wrote: »

You're obviously a lot more naïve than I am about what posters actually state was said/ happened.

I've been called a lot of things but naïve is a new one! Perhaps you ought to take a look at yourself and wonder what makes you so immediately suspicious and doubtful with no evidence that indicates the OP wasn't being truthful.

Pollycat

mad_dr wrote: »

I've been called a lot of things but naïve is a new one! Perhaps you ought to take a look at yourself and wonder what makes you so immediately suspicious and doubtful with no evidence that indicates the OP wasn't being truthful.

I'm not suspicious at all, I just don't automatically believe everything that I'm told, especially in a 2nd hand account from someone who is clearly unhappy enough about service he/she has allegedly received from a store to ask for the contact details of the CEO.

If you do automatically believe everything you are told, then I reiterate - you're naïve.

hollydays

It's a first hand account.

Pollycat

hollydays wrote: »

It's a first hand account.

OK then.

It's a one-sided, unverified first-hand account.