Bloody Wiggle

superkenners

My issue is the thing I wanted to buy was not clearly labelled with one question Wiggle answered indicating its a different product. So I bought both, assuming I could return for free. I would have preferred to just buy the correct item first time and didn't want to wait for them to get back to me (which also costs them time and money).

Generally though I think this is a false economy. Return postage is not enough to cover the cost of returns, they are just trying to raise margins a bit. But I will just be more cautious ordering, so will probably order more sizes rather than take a best guess, which is usually ok, but sometimes not. In the past that wasn't such an issue. That will increase my returns quite a bit, even if I end up paying a bit in postage (still free delivery). And that will cost them lots more, as postage is tip of the iceberg when processing a return. I think its about 20% to process a return as you can't simply stick is back on shelf, certainly clothing.

itboffin

What pinno said, free returns is one of the worst ideas ever, yes it sounds good but the cost to businesses already struggling to price match its far more than postage.

On top of that a lot of the traffic on the roads is now extra due to returns, people buying to try at home then send back what doesn't fit or they don't like is unacceptable, yes manufacturers sizing is shit in most cases and we're all busy but continue down this path and we'll be left with Amazon and sports direct.

This is not a rant I'm giving you hard facts I do this for a living, this is not sustainable

shirley_basso

Jacksyee wrote:

Jacksyee wrote:

Interesting. it will make them suffer vs. Amazon and is short sighted. They should simply keep track and punish serial returners and simply let them know that they will have to pay to restock should they return.

I had an amazon package disappear the other day after delivery and they instantly credited me and reordered. I imagine because I am not an abuser.

Big data allows for customer selection and abusers should pay for themselves and themselves alone

Free returns are staying, consumers want it and in general it works.

Not for the vendors.

pinno

If (and it has been mentioned), the free returns can only be absorbed by the bigger chains, this will ultimately impact on the consumer when smaller outlets cannot compete.
We're also seeing the demise of the LBS. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Why do we want everything so damn cheap in the UK?!

I could start talking about consumables... but I won't.

joey54321

To add to the list of 'Wiggle going downhill'. I ordered something over a week ago, I have had no communication and it hasn't even been dispatched yet. The tracking number goes to Royal Mail which is saying "The sender has advised us they're preparing your item. More information will be available when we receive it.". Pretty bad service to have not sent it for a week with no explanation.

shirley_basso

It's not really 'service'.

Almost every step you are complaining about is automated - it's likely a computer error than poor service.

slowbike

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's not really 'service'.

Almost every step you are complaining about is automated - it's likely a computer error than poor service.

If the automated processes are not monitored then that's not good either.

Either which way - to the consumer, it's a service - payment for delivery of an item to a specific location in an advertised timescale ... failure to deliver on their part - whatever the cause - is still failure of service.

pinno

...and to think how long things used to take buying mail order through the back pages of the Comic :roll:

Captain Fagor

When I was a young boy browsing the fishing magazines, every advert said "allow 28 days for delivery." And you also needed a chequebook!

surfercyclist

Yep I remember consulting the Yellow Pages(remember them) and then ringing around companies to find stuff, and then having to describe exactly what you wanted and person end of phone listing umpteen serial numbers which you then had to guess which was right one. People tend to forget just how easy certain aspects of life are nowadays as compared to pre-internet time.

bungle73

Jacksyee wrote:

Interesting. it will make them suffer vs. Amazon and is short sighted. They should simply keep track and punish serial returners and simply let them know that they will have to pay to restock should they return.

That would be illegal.

pinno

Bungle73 wrote:

Jacksyee wrote:

Interesting. it will make them suffer vs. Amazon and is short sighted. They should simply keep track and punish serial returners and simply let them know that they will have to pay to restock should they return.

That idea is giving the likes of me palpitations.

FTFY.

joey54321

Bungle73 wrote:

Jacksyee wrote:

Interesting. it will make them suffer vs. Amazon and is short sighted. They should simply keep track and punish serial returners and simply let them know that they will have to pay to restock should they return.

That would be illegal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47820387

bungle73

joey54321 wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

Jacksyee wrote:

Interesting. it will make them suffer vs. Amazon and is short sighted. They should simply keep track and punish serial returners and simply let them know that they will have to pay to restock should they return.

That would be illegal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47820387

And? Charging a restocking fee is contrary to consumer protection law.

StillGoing

Bungle73 wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

Jacksyee wrote:

Interesting. it will make them suffer vs. Amazon and is short sighted. They should simply keep track and punish serial returners and simply let them know that they will have to pay to restock should they return.

That would be illegal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47820387

And? Charging a restocking fee is contrary to consumer protection law.

A vender can apply any terms it likes to a sale prior to purchase. The consumer then has the choice to purchase or go elsewhere. Wiggle would be perfectly within their rights to tell repeat offenders that anything they purchase can no longer be returned by free post due to the excessive amount of returns they have made.

bungle73

philthy3 wrote:

A vender can apply any terms it likes to a sale prior to purchase.

Er no they can not. They have to obey the law. The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 specifically forbid the charging of restocking fees, amongst other things.

pinno

Bungle73 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A vender can apply any terms it likes to a sale prior to purchase.

Er no they can not. They have to obey the law. The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 specifically forbid the charging of restocking fees, amongst other things.

It's immaterial.
If Wiggle pass the cost on to the customer by charging more, that's not illegal.
If Wiggle decide to abandon free delivery, that's not illegal.
If there are restocking costs that they consider that need to be recovered somehow, they are hardly going to label them 're-stocking costs' are they?

You cannot legally force a company to sell to anyone.

The link above regarding Asos shows clearly that companies have a right and can exercise a right to charge 'serial returners'.
Personally, I think they have a moral right to.

We live in a country where people are loathed to pay the proper price for everything. The side effect of this is partly to blame for demise of the high street store. It also puts so much pressure on the smaller companies that in the long run, only the big one's survive.
Wiggle could be approached at any time, by any company globally in a take over bid, hostile or not.
Therefore, Wiggle could theoretically be bought by some company in say HK, China, the US and then gone is the corporate tax revenue WE benefit from.

This is interesting, particularly the 1st comment:

https://cyclingindustry.news/wigglecrc- ... ng-losses/