Rate Your Mail Order Purchases

[PDJ]

A couple of days ago I received plants from Bloms Bulbs and thought it was time to start a thread for rating mail order purchases.

Please rate the plants you receive via mail order both good and bad experiences.

Below are pictures of Bloms Plants.

[Maggi Young]

While I appreciate the intention here is to share experiences with Forumists and that these may be good or bad... I would hope that anyone with a bad experience with any seller first contacts the seller to make that complaint.
It is only fair to allow a seller a chance to make reparation.

Likewise I would hope that Forumists receiving good customer service, fine plants, well packaged, are equally quick to praise their suppliers both here and to the seller direct.

 

[PDJ]

Thank you for your views Maggi but I feel that when you provide goods or services you should check the quality before dispatch as your reputation travels with the goods.

[ashley]

Point taken Maggi, and obviously criticisms via the Forum of named suppliers may cause discomfort.

A common problem is supply of mis-identified or diseased material.  In that context it's interesting to note the 'Returns Policy' of some suppliers of mainly dormant material who stipulate, for instance, that 'any claim for replacement/refund of plants for any reason be made within 7 days'.

Since mistaken identity or e.g. viral infection (neither unheard of ) are unlikely to become evident for at least several months, such a policy is dubious to put it mildly.
Caveat emptor.

[Susan Band]

I am afraid Ashley that the trading standard require you to state that, no matter what your return policy is. Crazy I know. Most dormant plant suppliers offer a returns policy if incorrectly named after they are flowering.
Susan

[ashley]

Interesting Susan.  I wonder how that fits with EU consumer protection law.

[daveyp1970]

I am afraid Ashley that the trading standard require you to state that, no matter what your return policy is. Crazy I know. Most dormant plant suppliers offer a returns policy if incorrectly named after they are flowering.
Susan

Susan is that true because i bought a muscari from a very well know bulb supplier,and on flowering is clearly not that but just ignores my emails.

[Maggi Young]

I recommend to you all to do a little research into what is known in the UK as the "Distance Selling  Regulations".

This requires that any seller using mail order, online ordering,( magazine, televison, whatever) to sell their wares (whereby the customer is not present and can examine the goods etc) MUST offer a refund if the customer cancels the order or sends it back OR NOTIFYS THE SELLER IN WRITING of INTENT to send it back  within seven days of either making the order or of receiving the order.

I rather think that some sellers may be using this stipulation rather loosley to claim the type of return policy Ashley describes.  These Distance Selling Regulations apply in addition to any regulations such as the Sale of Goods- Implied Terms Act and so on, which state that goods "must be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose".

In many distance selling situations, not just plant sellers, there is widepsread misunderstanding of such regulations and in some cases, outright mis-stating of them.

Thank goodness there are some extremely honest and straightforward dealers who would never dream of hiding behind such screens!

[Gerry Webster]

I recommend to you all to do a little research into what is known in the UK as the "Distance Selling  Regulations".

This requires that any seller using mail order, online ordering,( magazine, televison, whatever) to sell their wares (whereby the customer is not present and can examine the goods etc) MUST offer a refund if the customer cancels the order or sends it back OR NOTIFYS THE SELLER IN WRITING of INTENT to send it back  within seven days of either making the order or of receiving the order.

I rather think that some sellers may be using this stipulation rather loosley to claim the type of return policy Ashley describes.  These Distance Selling Regulations apply in addition to any regulations such as the Sale of Goods- Implied Terms Act and so on, which state that goods "must be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose".

In many distance selling situations, not just plant sellers, there is widepsread misunderstanding of such regulations and in some cases, outright mis-stating of them.

Thank goodness there are some extremely honest and straightforward dealers who would never dream of hiding behind such screens!

That's very interesting Maggi but it's application to plants seems far from straightforward. I suppose a diseased plant (say virused) is not "of merchantable quality or fit for purpose'' but a wrongly identified plant? I know of at least one seller who is very erratic in response (or lack of response) to complaints about identity. I have had  three occasions to  complain recently;  the first time  I was informed that plants are variable, the second time  I was sent a replacement, the third time I had no response at all.

[ashley]

I think that's the nub of the matter Gerry.  Disease & misidentification should be covered by the 'fit for purpose' requirement.  However a supplier who attempts to limit customer rights with something along the lines of 'We will not replace plants which are not returned within seven days of their receipt by you' directly contravenes customer protection law as I understand it. 

Fortunately most suppliers are excellent and do not need to try such bluffing, as Maggi says.

[Maggi Young]

I think that's the nub of the matter Gerry.  Disease & misidentification should be covered by the 'fit for purpose' requirement.  However a supplier who attempts to limit customer rights with something along the lines of 'We will not replace plants which are not returned within seven days of their receipt by you' directly contravenes customer protection law as I understand it. 

Fortunately most suppliers are excellent and do not need to try such bluffing, as Maggi says.

 Yes, Ashley, I think you're right and I think the regulations would support that Disease & misidentification should be covered by the 'fit for purpose' requirement.

[PDJ]

The Returns policy of a company is all well and good but the point I was making is why send them in the first place.

[Maggi Young]

The Returns policy of a company is all well and good but the point I was making is why send them in the first place.

Why indeed?  

It can be that the postal service causes a delay, of course... but that is usually easy to check with postmarks.

And something that is exhibiting the signs of four weeks decay in a plastic bag did not get that way from point of departure to point of arrival in two days....  

I fear there will always be some 'wide boy' who prefers a quick buck to establishing a long and trusting relationship with a customer who will return time and again and spread good reports  - perhaps with the distance involved in mail order they feel "safer" from recriminations?

[jomowi]

I am neither condoning the dubious internet sales nurserymen or accusing any fourmist of trying to dishonestly claim a refund, but when I worked in a garden centre we were always getting folk coming back months and up to a year or more after purchasing plants with the defunct remains.

Some of these complaints were genuine, but others played (usually successfully) on our goodwill.  Rarely did they produce repceipts for the purchase, and when questioned as to how they had treated the plant, it was obvious in some cases that they themselves had been responsible for its demise by not treating it properly. (e.g. you plant a 9 foot tree, water it in, and think that’s it, no more aftercare necessary regardless of the weather)  We usually recognised our own plants even though they did not always still have our label on, but in some cases people would swear they had bought them from us when we did not even stock those plants.  One one occasion, after swearing that he had bought the plant from us, the manager found the label belonging to another garden centre on the corpse!

[jomowi]

Sorry I meant 'forumist'  not 'fourmist' in the previous entry!