. Standing behind their product for defects is part of that reknowned customer service. They have modified defect policy to say something like at our discretion. You were allowed to return your defects. I think that means a lot. I do know from personal experience that Nordstrom (at least in my local store) no longer considers shoe defects to be a customer service issue. They provide no recourse for valid defects and no longer even offer a repair option much less returns for brand new luxury items. I believe I heard the same regarding handbags but have heard nothing similar for apparel items like those you mention.
Is that actually legal, then, in the States? It seems such an odd thing for a retailer to be allowed to do. Remind me never to buy shoes from Nordstrom! The buyer would be legally entitled to full refund for anything defective in the UK. Before 2015, this legal protection lasted for 6 months after purchase. Now it lasts for the reasonably expected life of the product in both EU and UK. There might be some other considerations such as wear and tear, repair options and so on, but the basic protection is there. The protection is even stronger if you’re buying online, you are always entitled to refund for any reason at all within a timeframe, subject to the goods being returned in the same condition as sold (condition not relevant with defective or not fit for purpose goods).
So as more experiences get posted, I’m wondering if some differences of opinion here are based on really different perceptions in different countries of what it is valid to return. Your post earlier in the thread, where you mentioned the woman who returned shoes whose soles she had slashed to be anti-slip. Did she just try to return, or did she actually get her refunds? Would a US retailer actually take those back just because they have a liberal return policy? In the UK they would always have been immediately refused if they were not in the condition they were sold in, unless they had some actual fault that she didn’t discover till after slashing them, meaning a true defect rather than something that just turned out to be unsuited to the buyer.
A lot of cosmetics would be final sale in the UK, unless they are very clearly still sealed and untouched, and even then often they’re not returnable. I got the impression somewhere that things can be tried and returned in the US, if you don’t like them? Unlikely to happen here, unless genuinely faulty/dangerous or as a goodwill gesture. I think you’d be well within your rights to return a foundation which had been supposedly blended to match but turned out completely wrong, it’s not what you were sold. A top whose colour transferred, that’s faulty beyond a doubt. I don’t think I’d be able to get any UK store to accept back a sweater that had pilled after as long as a year, or a coat that shed on other clothes after wearing, unless unusually excessive. I’m not saying that
@againstandforward who returned those shouldn’t have, just that it’s different here, and if Nordstrom said they would take such returns, then they should. I expect there are conditions in the T&Cs about their right to ban you, but if most of the returns were perfectly valid, that shouldn’t be a reason, and they could always refuse to accept things back if the reasons were not valid?
So I’m genuinely wondering, are we all talking about the same thing when we talk about a liberal return policy? It might explain some differences of opinion. I was interested because I’m occasionally in the US and also have shopped at Nordstrom online from here, assuming the policy to be similar to the UK’s. It sounds a little to me now as if they have operated a madly liberal return policy far beyond legal requirements (which seem to be laxer, however, than in EU and UK?). During this time they also often let customers be the ones who suffer from it by sending out damaged returns or shop-soiled goods as new to other customers, if what people say on this forum is true. It does sound very much as if Nordstrom has been encouraging this extraordinarily easy returns culture for its own reasons, so in the interests of goodwill alone it would be decent of them to tread lightly in their approach to a customer returning a lot. Now they’ve started to calculate that it’s no longer beneficial to them, those who got used to the old policy are being caught up in a change of culture. So it would be nice if Nordstrom gave people the benefit of the doubt with a courteous nudge before banning. I get the impression they don’t always? I’m wondering if there could even be a case for holding some companies responsible for encouraging an addiction, like a tobacco company? I wonder if we’ll ever see a law suit?
Of course there are outliers like the kids who habitually buy, Instagram and return, that may be a thorough nuisance. But (gasp) even they’re human too and are getting influenced in their immaturity by powerful external forces. My response to the ‘Becky’ stereotype used by a poster on page was intended to try to debunk it a bit (intended to be done humorously but maybe my British humour doesn’t translate). But meantime other basically reasonable people who may have returned a lot, having been given active encouragement by Nordstrom because ultimately the policy worked (for a time) to Nordstrom’s advantage, are being made to feel like criminals for taking Nordstrom up on its offer. Why can’t Nordstrom refuse to accept invalid returns, before they start issuing bans? Don’t they do that? I don’t understand. I think that just makes me not like Nordstrom. Yes, to those who would chime in here, Nordstrom can change its policies, no, Nordstrom doesn’t have to be nice to customers who’ve returned a lot, no, the customer doesn’t have to like it. But actually you know, most people have just been doing what the shop encouraged them to (makes customer base bigger, encourages customer loyalty, encourages more spending and is likely on balance to result in bigger profits, cost of returns is a manageable overhead, not an absolute loss to the company). So it would be really nice for us to be thoughtful towards those people here, just as thoughtful as
@3threebabies has been.
And whisper it: if I’d returned 10 out of 10 items of moderate value for quite valid reasons, especially for anything that wasn’t as it appeared on screen (think bulldog clips at the back of dress) faulty or not fit for purpose, if they ban me, if I’d not already given up on them, but in the next months I was set to buy four £5000 handbags (I can dream!), 10 pairs of shoes and start rebuilding my designer wardrobe ... now I’ll go to Net-a-Porter instead because they’re quite keen to have my money and don’t make a fuss if a whole run of items ordered didn’t work out.
Above all, it’s the ecological issues that are desperately in need of addressing (though I doubt that has yet been Nordstrom’s first concern, except for potential public image reasons and also is an overall consumption issue).
Edited to add, it’s been pointed out to me that the poster had not said she had been banned, I misunderstood. So please read this post and my previous one in that light. I would still make the points about refusing invalid returns before warning, and warning before banning Thanks
@sdkitty.
