Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

StraightSilver wrote:
OK, I must eat humble pie so apologies, please disregard my posts.

I wasn't aware of that legislation from June 2014 in the link above (no longer work in retail) so in fact the OP is correct, he is entitled to the postage refund, and I am surprised GW isn't aware of this. That is quite a big change.

It's not a big change. The new regs merely slightly extended the grace period; the right to return an item for full refund(including original postage costs) has been part of UK law ever since the enactment of the Distance Selling Regulations in 2000. Whether the goods were faulty or not only came into things when considering whether the retailer also had to cover the cost of you returning the item to them(faulty - they pay, no-fault return, you pay) or if you went outside the grace period.

EDIT: It's also not even remotely unfair. We're talking about regulations that cover distance selling - if I go into a store I can inspect an item before I purchase it to ensure it's exactly what I want, I am making a fully informed purchase, and so if I change my mind and want my money back(and the goods are not faulty) it is at the retailer's discretion whether they offer a refund and what form it takes(my money back, store credit etc). It is often not possible to obtain enough information about a product being bought online to ensure it's exactly what you wanted, certainly not to the same level of certainty as if you were buying the item in a store where you could physically inspect the goods prior to purchase, and so consumers buying online are given that short period in which to return the item without fault(at their own cost). This kind of protection was only necessary in the first place because online retailers often failed to provide complete/adequate information about the products they were selling, but were not technically in breach of existing product advertising laws, so if this ever does become a problem for them the industry have nobody to blame but themselves.

As far as I was aware this did not apply to retailers with B and M stores.

However the new regulations clearly cover any online retail outlet, including the online parts of physical retailers.

As far as consumer rights were concerned retailers were only obliged to refund items that were faulty or mis-sold, any other returns policy was in addition to statutory rights, but can understand that buying online is different.

Have to admit though that my area of expertise is not in online or distance selling so stand corrected but I must admit as somebody who dealt with fraudulent refunds i can see how this could be massively abused by dishonest consumers.

Actually the real issue here is that the employees were not aware that in their own policies it states that postage must be refunded as well.
I tend to get a little "excited" when the person who should know their policies do not and the customer gets shafted.
The proper thing to do is contact a manager and let them know that some of their procedures are not being handled correctly and some retraining is in order.
Just to ensure no other customers get similarly inconvenienced.
Never account for being evil when stupidity will suffice.

StraightSilver wrote:
As far as I was aware this did not apply to retailers with B and M stores.

However the new regulations clearly cover any online retail outlet, including the online parts of physical retailers.

As far as consumer rights were concerned retailers were only obliged to refund items that were faulty or mis-sold, any other returns policy was in addition to statutory rights, but can understand that buying online is different.

Have to admit though that my area of expertise is not in online or distance selling so stand corrected but I must admit as somebody who dealt with fraudulent refunds i can see how this could be massively abused by dishonest consumers.

I don't see how - if you use the product you lose the right to return, in some cases even if you just open it(you're allowed to open something if opening it is the only way to obtain relevant information). You still have to pay the return postage yourself if there's no retail outlet to drop it off. Where's the opportunity for someone dishonest to gain something at the retailer's expense?

And this is what I've been saying; the new regs are not substantially different to the old regs in this regard; consumers have had all these rights for any online purchase since 2000, whether the retailer had B&M outlets or not, all the EU directive has done is tinker round the edges a little and expand the period in which you have to reconsider from 7 to 14 days. It's one of the few areas in which UK law has not been wholly inadequate compared to EU law.

 JP1138 wrote:
Are GW so desperate for cash that they are willing to openly lie to their customers?

A bit of a stretch there. It seems much more likely that a customer service person had incorrect information...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Actually the real issue here is that the employees were not aware that in their own policies it states that postage must be refunded as well.
I tend to get a little "excited" when the person who should know their policies do not and the customer gets shafted.
The proper thing to do is contact a manager and let them know that some of their procedures are not being handled correctly and some retraining is in order.
Just to ensure no other customers get similarly inconvenienced.
Never account for being evil when stupidity will suffice.

Completely agree.

And to be honest - if you have ever worked in a large organization or a support group you KNOW that mistakes like this happen from time to time. All you can try to do is make it right.

This isn't GW being desperate for cash. In the state that I live in no one has to refund your shipping if the product isn't faulty.

Obviously you're nor in the US and it looks like you have different laws.

By the way really misleading title for the thread OP.

In 2014, Games Workshop's operating margin was 10%, compared to an operating margin of 15.8% in 2013

In answer to the quesiton in the title, they're not desperate yet, but they will be soon if they carry on their downward trend. Perhaps they're battening down the hatches early?

I have a very simple formula for things like this:

If i were to pay myself my own effective hourly rate that i get at my job, and compare that to the hours invested required to fix a redress.

If this amount comes out more than the amount i'm seeking redress for, i let it go. Because my time is, literally, worth more.

If it's less, have at it.


I usually do not get so worked up as to stand on "the principle" of things, as I find that's a fancy way of saying "I'm pissed, and goddammit i'm sticking it to someone."

Every email you send on this btw, you're not sticking it to GW. You're making some poor CSR's day miserable over what was, what, 10 ? 20 ? bucks of shipping ?

The paragraphs and paragraphs of net searched legal statutes, and ill-context quoted laws ? They don't give a feth for one, and for another, what are you going to do, hire a solicitor ? To what gain ? to even write a letter on your behalf would probably be a billable hour, and even the lowest ambulance chaser is going to charge you 150-200 to do that. So there's no economic gain here either. And they know that. Every email this CSR gets produces a heavy sigh, an eyeroll, and then he probably forwards it around to all his friends in the department to read and goof on.

You literally have an axe to grind, and you're grinding it into some customer service representative making either minimum wage or just above it.

I don't see the gain here. I'd let it go. You have even admitted its a trivial amount, so why keep up pretenses and still fight this "good fight" that has no appreciable worthwhile end game for you ?



I dunno. Maybe i'm too laid back. I like not having ulcers i guess.

I love slagging off GW as much as the next man, but frankly I think that GW are entirely correct in this instance.

I mean, at the end of the day its your fault you wanted to return things, their responsibility was make the model, and get it to you in one piece.

Im pretty sure that this has happened to me at some point in my life, and I never expected the shipping back.

I mean, think about it. It sounds like one of those awful coworkers who wants to get out of work and says things like "my wifes had a miscarriage I need to go home" (It was her fething fifth that year apparently) or "The kids are sick" (they are sick every Saturday when the football is on)

Even if the excuses are true, its still not really the companys job to square you away. I mean, most will out of courtesy, but it aint their fething job is it?

If you were unlucky enough to get the same present twice, they are decent enough to say "Ok have all your money back then" I really don't think they should have to pay the pittance that is shipping.

Its like a tiny slap on the wrist so you do your present administration better.

But then, I have long advocated a $10 charge to see a GP in Britain to stop the massive amount of fething hypochondriacts and arseholes from causing chaos at the doctors, so maybe I'm not the bloke to ask, but I just generally don't like people that cant sort their gak out.

I found the thread title a bit misleading, this looks more like a mistake than anything else to me.

 mattyrm wrote:
Even if the excuses are true, its still not really the companys job to square you away. I mean, most will out of courtesy, but it aint their fething job is it?

If it's within 14 days of the purchase then yes, it is, under EU law, the company's job. There's no need for ''excuses'' to ask for a refund within that period, the law specifically states a customer can ask for a refund, even if because they simply changed their mind.

Akragth wrote:
I found the thread title a bit misleading, this looks more like a mistake than anything else to me.

 mattyrm wrote:
Even if the excuses are true, its still not really the companys job to square you away. I mean, most will out of courtesy, but it aint their fething job is it?

If it's within 14 days of the purchase then yes, it is, under EU law, the company's job. There's no need for ''excuses'' to ask for a refund within that period, the law specifically states a customer can ask for a refund, even if because they simply changed their mind.

Aye I know that part, I mean, is the shipping legally included as well? I would presume it wasn't, because what about if you buy a fridge or something, and the company spends a ton driving the fether over, only to get there and you go "Ive changed my mind"

I don't know the law, but I would guess, they don't legally have to pay shipping.

And if they do, they fething shouldn't!

 mattyrm wrote:
I mean, is the shipping legally included as well?

It is. But you are still responsible for paying for the item's return.

Quick update: after initially offering me £5 store credit, they have agreed to refund me the £3.50 shipping.

So all good in the end.

 JP1138 wrote:
Quick update: after initially offering me £5 store credit, they have agreed to refund me the £3.50 shipping.

So all good in the end.

Uhhhh....

I would expect that the process for refunding shipping cost is more of complicated than simpling giving someone a £3.50 voucher.

You kicked a fuss up over £3.50 shipping? Maybe we should be asking "How Desperate For Cash Are You?"

I appreciate not everyone is loaded but still, I'd have taken the store credit.

Generally, if I order something and have it shipped to me and then have to return it at no fault whatsoever to the company, I don't expect them to return the shipping. I can give them the product back, but I can't give them the shipping back.

I definitely wouldn't post about it in a public forum, research policies and send emails to the company demanding my (very small amount of money) back... but, to each his own. Every man draw a different line in the sand.

 Haight wrote:
...
You literally have an axe to grind, and you're grinding it into some customer service representative making either minimum wage or just above it....

He murdered the clerk with an axe? Didn't know that was an option. I have to try that next time they mess up my order at Wendy's

Recent legislation says that you're required to use the deep fryer.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Wow, so in the UK anyone can basically legally bankrupt a company by repeatedly ordering whatever amount of product and getting a full refund, sticking the company with shipping costs?

That's what I was thinking, actually seems quite unfair.

No they absolutely couldn't, the OP has every right to claim the shipping costs back in this case but if someone did this repeatedly, without any good reason, a quick visit to a county-court judge would establish unnecessary / malicious behaviour, particularly if the costs involved were enough to genuinely damage the company in question.

No, I can't quote any relevant cases, just saying getting a refund for a genuine case and someone doing it 100 times would not be treated in the same way

3.5 pounds,

There are apparently a lot of people on dakka who don't understand basic customer service.

Yes its a few bucks, no its not unreasonable (law aside) for a company to not want to pay shipping or even refuse the refund entirely if they weren't in the wrong but that's not what this is about.

This is a retail company hemmoraging customers, keeping those that remain happy and ensuring they stay repeat customers should be at the absolute top of their priorities. Three fifty is nothing to them but how much could they lose if OP stopped shopping with them because he felt cheated (justified or not)?

I'm not sure where the expectation to have the shipping refunded comes from. Did Games Workshop somehow trick you into placing an order, paying to have the order shipped to your home, then steal the money you paid to have the models shipped? Are you really expecting them to lose money they paid to have the models that you ordered shipped to you? Maybe have your girlfriend reimburse you the cost of shipping.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I'm not sure where the expectation to have the shipping refunded comes from.

The law

It might be a tad petty to want 3.50 refunded, but he is well within his legal rights to ask for it.

Akragth wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I'm not sure where the expectation to have the shipping refunded comes from.

The law

It might be a tad petty to want 3.50 refunded, but he is well within his legal rights to ask for it.

Is this a UK law you are referring to? How is that the company that fulfills an order and ships it out to the customer is on the hook for the shipping cost if the customer changes his mind? Is that good business anywhere? As a long time manager in retail if someone was making a huge stink for $7 in shipping costs we would just refund them if they were nice about it but if they come in hot and entitled they would never see a dime of it.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

Akragth wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I'm not sure where the expectation to have the shipping refunded comes from.

The law

It might be a tad petty to want 3.50 refunded, but he is well within his legal rights to ask for it.

Is this a UK law you are referring to? How is that the company that fulfills an order and ships it out to the customer is on the hook for the shipping cost if the customer changes his mind? Is that good business anywhere? As a long time manager in retail if someone was making a huge stink for $7 in shipping costs we would just refund them if they were nice about it but if they come in hot and entitled they would never see a dime of it.

It's an EU law.

Lots of people here that apparently don't mind that a company breaks the law to weasel out of its obligations to their customers...

 Kriswall wrote:
Generally, if I order something and have it shipped to me and then have to return it at no fault whatsoever to the company, I don't expect them to return the shipping. I can give them the product back, but I can't give them the shipping back.

I definitely wouldn't post about it in a public forum, research policies and send emails to the company demanding my (very small amount of money) back... but, to each his own. Every man draw a different line in the sand.

Plus the fact that they were offering a £5 credit which was his money back and then some!

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Generally, if I order something and have it shipped to me and then have to return it at no fault whatsoever to the company, I don't expect them to return the shipping. I can give them the product back, but I can't give them the shipping back.

I definitely wouldn't post about it in a public forum, research policies and send emails to the company demanding my (very small amount of money) back... but, to each his own. Every man draw a different line in the sand.

Plus the fact that they were offering a £5 credit which was his money back and then some!

With the implication that he must spend that money on their stores, so no it was not his money back.

Well £5 store credit doesn't cost them £5. £5 GW stock costs them about £1. Also it's easier on the admin to issue credit than a refund.