I don't think this poster has been banned....seems she is just saying she could be banned (if I'm reading correctly)
Nordstrom banned from shopping from their online and store
- Thread starter mzmba
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
You know, based on this, I would expect that you would be banned from Nordstrom shortly. You have some legitimate points about decline of quality, but it is not just Nordstrom, it is the industry as a whole - Fast Fashion and globalization has destroyed the markups in retail, many things are made more cheaply than before- but if you happen to have any receipts from 10 years ago, you will discover than prices have actually GONE DOWN.
Used makeup, shoes and sweaters that fell apart after 1 year would be considered a sunk cost for Nordstrom (many things are created to last only one year)- they would need to make up for that on margins elsewhere, which are becoming non-existent. In general I think returns of worn clothing will probably become a thing of the past for everybody. Mis-shipments, wrong color etc are fine to return.
Yes certainly in the UK I’d never expect to return anything used unless actually faulty. And I believe it’s fine to do the odd few returns within policy because item just didn’t suit you or you had to order multiples for comparison in the mix. They have to factor that in online. It must make a big difference on that, what price point we’re talking about. When you see such huge numbers of high end designer clothes etc go into sales at 40% off, you’ve got to believe there’s quite a large profit margin at full price, and also a decent one at 40% off, or these retailers would not have taken on the stock in the first place. The more disposable end of the market must be different to at least some extent, with narrow margins. (“Disposable”: Oh, our poor planet!)
@Annie J once again a well thought out and written post.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.
Companies like Nordstrom, LL Bean and Costco did have open return policies that created a culture easy to be manipulated. States do vary on specific consumer rights, but retailers and wholesalers do not have universal policies regarding defects. There is definitely an element of buyer beware in a lot of instances. And, yes, in 2002 I gave that woman a full refund on her credit card for her slashed up unworn shoes. In the exact same situation today, there would be no discussion. The shoes would be hers to keep. She would probably try to “charge back” with her bank and might be successful depending on card t&c.
Well, pretty much our whole culture now has entitlement issues so it makes sense.
Agree. Stores rarely have sizes anymore. If I had a nickel for every time a SA said to me, 'We don't have that size but I can't order it'. I always say no. I can do that myself and then I don't have to feel all guilty if I return. And the return thing rate is often why I say no.
this thread bought to mind for me that NR doesn't take back cosmetics. since they are like any other retailer when it comes to DS cosmetics and have no testers this makes no sense to me. They are the leader in CS yet they are not competitive with drug stores, WM, TJ Maxx or Target, when it comes to this one thing
I sent an email to management with this question. I don't think one customer is going to change their policy but wonder if they will respond in some way.
I sent an email to management with this question. I don't think one customer is going to change their policy but wonder if they will respond in some way.
Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!
Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!
Yes. I had that same thought.
same - if you have worn it for a year then you got your money worth. The nerve to return it after a year. Thats entitlement.
That’s kind of you, @3threebabies. I expect a valid alternative response would be “Another rather long post”
Sounds as though it’s been quite difficult to get a balance for consumers and retailers alike with varying state laws in the US. The uniform legal underpinning of consumer protection in the UK and in Europe forms a useful solid basis for individual retailer policies and brings a lot of clarity to the situation, making each side very aware of both their rights and their responsibilities.
Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!
It seems it’s just not going to be possible to appeal to people not to be summarily judgemental of fellow TPF members who have been open enough to post about their returns in this thread, or to talk about those members as though they’re not here.
The lady who wrote that already said she felt upset by all the accusations in the thread.
She clearly believed the return of the pilled sweaters was justified on grounds of quality, and while I wrote myself that you probably wouldn’t be able to do it after as long a year in the UK, there would still be statutory grounds for it if the item hadn’t lasted in good condition for its reasonably expected lifetime. The customer would be entitled to her money back. Imagine if these sweaters had been cashmere and silk, and advertised or sold by a sales assistant as investment pieces, for instance. A year’s wear wouldn’t seem like much of an investment. This could happen and make the return entirely justifiable. Besides, Nordstrom could easily have refused the return if they felt it wasn’t a reasonable belief that the sweaters should last longer. The fact that they took the sweaters back was a signal to the customer that Nordstrom accepted that it was reasonable.
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion but it would be great if we could be moderate and not pass judgement on individuals who are actually participating in the discussion.
Seems crazy not to offer testers. I accept I can’t return cosmetics I’ve bought online where testers aren’t possible, unless there’s something actually wrong with them. Don’t think I’d buy anything in store if no tester was available, apart from regular items I already know. That must translate to lost sales and a lot of fed up people with once-used cosmetics kicking around their bathroom cabinets! They ought to take notice of you. You never know, they might take notice of one customer when she has a very valid point. I actually did manage to get the allergy labelling more detailed on a large chocolate manufacturer’s packaging years ago, because my letter got through to the right person at the right time. It’s since changed again because the legislation finally caught up with understanding of anaphylaxis (though the change I wanted was to get it more nuanced just so anaphylaxis sufferers would have wider choices as well as being safer; the subsequent law has made it safer but blunter. Obviously the safety is most important though!). If they’re cracking down on returns it would be good if they offered you a better chance of the product working for you by making testers readily available in store.
A friend of mine used to work for a very renowned department store here and they would accept every single return: worn prom dresses, smelling and with underarm stains. Heck, they even had to accept an H&M cardigan! This is crazy as the cost for this has to be bourne by all customers.....Wait...people are returning things after a year of wear!?!?!
If a retailer has a return policy that is essentially , we want you to be satisfied , period , and they take things back after being obviously worn, after periods like a year, well then, yes, things are going to be returned in whatever time frame that consumer has an expectation for that item to last, wear a certain way etc.
So I have a few different points here.
If I bought many items from a brick and mortar or online store and had to return them for reasons I felt were legitimate quality issues, I’d would consider looking for a place to shop with better quality items. Returns can be time consuming. And if that store makes returns easy, there is still a quality issue. And if I was banned from returns, because of returning things I felt I had a legitimate reason to, I would have no trouble leaving them behind . I might miss them at first, but if I pay money and the quality /service isn’t there, what’s the point. So if I got banned from any store for any reason, I might not like it, lol, cause it’s still a relationship, but will go find another vender to give me the quality I seek.
I heard a wise young woman say many years ago, we vote with our money with every purchase we make. For example, when I read about the quantity of pesticides that go into cultivating cotton crops worldwide, I made a decision to buy jeans at consignment, thrift shops whenever possible. Not to get sidetracked with my personal views, but you get my point . I refuse to spend my money if I cannot get the service or quality I desire. Or a product that is produced in a way I would rather not support. I will abide by a company’s rules, ie return policy, but if the quality is not there, it’s not there.
So edited to add, if I keep spending money on products from a retailer and the quality is not there, I feel like I am sending them the the message, keep selling me poor quality products.
Another point, I did make a conscious decision I mean, 20 years ago, lol, to buy sweaters and bathing suits specifically from 2 retailers with a satisfaction guaranteed policy (that I saw what I considered an abusive return with my own eyes, that I wanted to lean over to my fellow consumer and say, are you freaking kidding me). Because I was tired of buying cheaply made bathing suits that came undone at the seams after a few wearings (20 years ago, most retailers would not take a used bathing suit back) and washable sweaters that would unravel after a few washes. And I returned 0 bathing suits to them ! And 1 sweater and 1 fleece top that had been worn. (Shout out to the Gap - I miss your knits from the 90’s, machine washed and dried , lasted forever. And then I still gave them to my sister)
Another side note, I kept a trusty portable sewing machine my mom bought when I was 10, if only to make simple seam repairs on new and old items I desired to keep. Delighted a girlfriend gave me a new portable machine she no longer uses.
The issues of consumerism and packing materials have already been discussed.
So I have a few different points here.
If I bought many items from a brick and mortar or online store and had to return them for reasons I felt were legitimate quality issues, I’d would consider looking for a place to shop with better quality items. Returns can be time consuming. And if that store makes returns easy, there is still a quality issue. And if I was banned from returns, because of returning things I felt I had a legitimate reason to, I would have no trouble leaving them behind . I might miss them at first, but if I pay money and the quality /service isn’t there, what’s the point. So if I got banned from any store for any reason, I might not like it, lol, cause it’s still a relationship, but will go find another vender to give me the quality I seek.
I heard a wise young woman say many years ago, we vote with our money with every purchase we make. For example, when I read about the quantity of pesticides that go into cultivating cotton crops worldwide, I made a decision to buy jeans at consignment, thrift shops whenever possible. Not to get sidetracked with my personal views, but you get my point . I refuse to spend my money if I cannot get the service or quality I desire. Or a product that is produced in a way I would rather not support. I will abide by a company’s rules, ie return policy, but if the quality is not there, it’s not there.
So edited to add, if I keep spending money on products from a retailer and the quality is not there, I feel like I am sending them the the message, keep selling me poor quality products.
Another point, I did make a conscious decision I mean, 20 years ago, lol, to buy sweaters and bathing suits specifically from 2 retailers with a satisfaction guaranteed policy (that I saw what I considered an abusive return with my own eyes, that I wanted to lean over to my fellow consumer and say, are you freaking kidding me). Because I was tired of buying cheaply made bathing suits that came undone at the seams after a few wearings (20 years ago, most retailers would not take a used bathing suit back) and washable sweaters that would unravel after a few washes. And I returned 0 bathing suits to them ! And 1 sweater and 1 fleece top that had been worn. (Shout out to the Gap - I miss your knits from the 90’s, machine washed and dried , lasted forever. And then I still gave them to my sister)
Another side note, I kept a trusty portable sewing machine my mom bought when I was 10, if only to make simple seam repairs on new and old items I desired to keep. Delighted a girlfriend gave me a new portable machine she no longer uses.
The issues of consumerism and packing materials have already been discussed.
Last edited: