Several major UK online retailers have been challenged over their returns processes after a Which? mystery-shopping investigation found shoppers were sometimes left without refunds for returned goods or standard delivery costs they were entitled to recover.
The consumer organisation used 12 mystery shoppers across Great Britain to purchase and return more than 200 products from 17 large online retailers during June and July.
Researchers tracked transactions from ordering and postal return through to the amount and timing of the eventual refund.
The investigation found significant differences between retailers. Matalan refunded the cost of returned products to seven of the 12 shoppers used in its test, while none received a refund for the original standard delivery charge.
River Island and Sports Direct also failed to refund original standard delivery charges in the cases tested, while Pets at Home refunded the cost of the returned goods to six of 12 mystery shoppers.
John Lewis performed strongly in the research and received Which?’s recommended-provider designation for returns.
Reena Sewraz, Which? retail editor, said: “Returning an online purchase shouldn’t be a battle to get your money back.”
The investigation focuses attention on an operational area that has become increasingly important as ecommerce has matured. Online returns are costly, involving collection or postage, inspection, inventory handling, possible discounting, customer-service time, and payment processing.
Those costs have led many retailers to tighten returns policies or introduce charges. Charging a customer to send an unwanted item back can be lawful where the relevant conditions are satisfied and clearly communicated, but that is separate from the obligation to reimburse sums due when a customer validly cancels an online purchase.
Under the Consumer Contracts Regulations, customers buying most goods online generally have 14 days after receiving an order to notify the retailer that they want to cancel. They then normally have a further 14 days to return the goods.
Where the statutory right to cancel applies, retailers generally have to refund the purchase price and the cost of standard outbound delivery. They do not have to reimburse the additional cost where a shopper selected a premium delivery option instead of the standard service.
The difference between a lawful returns charge and an incomplete refund is commercially important. Retailers are under pressure to control reverse-logistics costs, but processes designed to reduce those costs still need to calculate the customer’s legal entitlement correctly.
Large ecommerce operations can make that complex. An order may contain several items dispatched in different parcels, returned through different channels, bought under a promotion, or accompanied by a separate delivery charge.
Systems then have to reconcile warehouse receipt of the product with the original transaction and trigger the appropriate reimbursement automatically or through staff intervention.
Failures can consequently arise from policy, technology, warehouse processing, finance systems, or customer-service workflows rather than one isolated part of the operation.
The customer-experience cost can exceed the amount in dispute. A shopper who has already decided not to keep a product is unlikely to view repeated calls or emails to obtain the correct refund as a neutral part of the purchase journey.
Returns performance can also affect household cash flow. Even relatively modest amounts become more important when repayment is delayed across several purchases or where customers have used debit cards or other payment products that immediately reduce available funds.
Retailers face the parallel challenge of reducing unnecessary returns without transferring excessive complexity to customers. Better product descriptions, sizing information, imagery, reviews, and fulfilment accuracy can reduce the number of items sent back before changes to return policies are considered.
Automation can improve refund handling, but only where the underlying rules and transaction data are correct. A fast system that systematically omits a delivery reimbursement merely processes the same error more efficiently.
The Which? research is a mystery-shopping exercise rather than an exhaustive audit of every return handled by the 17 retailers. It nevertheless records live customer experiences and identifies points at which actual refund processes failed during the transactions tested.
As ecommerce businesses continue to focus on profitability, reverse logistics will remain a major target for efficiency. Consumer law limits how far that efficiency drive can alter shoppers’ statutory rights, leaving accurate and timely refund administration as both a compliance requirement and an operational measure of customer service.
You must be logged in to post a comment.