Amazon Banning Customers 2016

marliepanda

soul1 wrote: »

Here is another link to another site that some may find interesting :- http://www.techwalls.com/amazon-ban-return-too-many-items/

The guy admits he was warned, returns a lot, and repeatedly mentions 'abusing' the system.

And he got his gift card returned.

How is this backing you up that Amazon are evil?

soul1

And just to add so much support for a company that does not play fairly when it comes to paying their UK Taxes :- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/24/amazons-uk-business-paid-119m-tax-last-year

vuvuzela

soul1 wrote: »

And just to add so much support for a company that does not play fairly when it comes to paying their UK Taxes :- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/24/amazons-uk-business-paid-119m-tax-last-year

I wondered how long it would be before this was mentioned.
Well done, you win

neilmcl

soul1 wrote: »

And just to add so much support for a company that does not play fairly when it comes to paying their UK Taxes :- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/24/amazons-uk-business-paid-119m-tax-last-year

And time to move on.

BrentMeister

DCFC79 wrote: »

And I bet other customers did the same too.

I remember the policy as I recall doing the same on a couple of games.

Many customers did, but not to an extent that really stood out.

Like all good schemes that get abused, it got knocked on the head.

soul1

marliepanda wrote: »

'Gone viral' and 'everyone's talking about it' is what you are exaggerating.

I think it's more a slow news day (top hits are metro and the sun... Hardly purveyors of breaking important news) and the only person I see talking a bout it, is you...

marliepanda, this is a discussion thread. We are all free to discuss what we want within reason. I have done absolutely nothing wrong by starting this forum thread. If you don't like what I have to say, then why do you keep reading it and replying. Secondly if you have nothing constructive to say and add the thread, then why bother posting anything at all. I have said it once and will say it again for the very last time. I don't agree with what Amazon is doing with regards to giving customers bans for life and genuine customers can and will be caught out by Amazon's policy. Watchdog investigated this, their Consumer Lawyer said that what Amazon is doing is not right. As Watchdog put it, you have to play the Amazon game and if you don't you can and will be caught out. Simple. You also mentioned to me in one of your posts that how does this mean Amazon are evil. We are not in a school playground here and I don't class people, or firms as good or evil. Finally nothing more to say on this matter. It has been a pleasure talking you all, but I feel that we are now just going round in circles. Cheers

marliepanda

soul1 wrote: »

Clearly your skills in using the internet tomtontom seem to be lacking and need some work imho. There is a video on Yahoo.com Finance with an American news programme discussing this latest Greg Nelson case. I tried to post the link, but unfortunately the forum site will not let me do it. I'm sure those of you who know your way around the web will be able to find it. Thanks

It was a response to this. This is not 'going viral' and 'everyone talking about it'

If you want to imply those who are unaware are internet illiterate then be prepared to defend that. A couple of daft news story's is not 'everyone talking about it' you are indeed exaggerating.

PhylPho

The banned customer returned 37 items in 24 months.

As an Amazon customer since 2001, have returned 3 items in 180 months.

If someone wishes to set him /herself up as one-man /one-woman answer to a Which? test laboratory for retail purchases, then that should be at their own expense. Not Amazon's, because the overhead unnecessarily incurred in dealing with excessive returns is ultimately a cost that gets passed back to all Amazon customers.

Like soolin, I also sell on eBay. Were I to have a buyer who returns an item to me, at my expense, every three weeks for two whole years -- well: it wouldn't ever get that far. The customer would be banned on the basis that my business and their custom are obviously incompatible.

soul1

PhylPho wrote: »

The banned customer returned 37 items in 24 months.

As an Amazon customer since 2001, have returned 3 items in 180 months.

If someone wishes to set him /herself up as one-man /one-woman answer to a Which? test laboratory for retail purchases, then that should be at their own expense. Not Amazon's, because the overhead unnecessarily incurred in dealing with excessive returns is ultimately a cost that gets passed back to all Amazon customers.

Like soolin, I also sell on eBay. Were I to have a buyer who returns an item to me, at my expense, every three weeks for two whole years -- well: it wouldn't ever get that far. The customer would be banned on the basis that my business and their custom are obviously incompatible.

Totally agree with you PhylPho. Just to add that some of the comments further down the page on the Techwalls site are interesting and show both sides of the argument imho.

soul1

marliepanda wrote: »

It was a response to this. This is not 'going viral' and 'everyone talking about it'

If you want to imply those who are unaware are internet illiterate then be prepared to defend that. A couple of daft news story's is not 'everyone talking about it' you are indeed exaggerating.

marliepanda this reply does not even relate to you. Why are you getting yourself involved. My opinion is that it has gone viral as a US News Programme has picked up on it. Your opinion is different. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. My own personal reason for posting this thread in the first place is to just raise awareness of this issue and that's it. For people who are ill or disabled, Amazon can be a lifeline to them as it sells virtually everything. Would be sad to see somebody like that ending up being banned. Having said that I did read about once customer who did get banned after their disabled family member ordered a certain amount of items and then returned them. It really had a bad impact on this family.