This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
| 2 minutes read

Can PLT ban me?

Pretty Little Thing (PLT), the online fast fashion retailer, has issued a statement on the recent controversy surrounding the closure of customer accounts. Earlier this month, some customers were emailed by the company to notify them that their accounts were being deactivated due to "unusual high returns activity" of clothing purchased from their site. It is unclear what threshold PLT has set in order to determine which customers have had their accounts closed. 

Following days of complaints by affected customers, PLT has now commented that the affected customers were a "small pool" who had "an extremely high returns rate… [and] demonstrated behaviours that were inconsistent with what [they] experience with the rest of [their] customer base".  

Questions have been raised by customers as to whether PLT is complying with the law in closing these customer accounts as, under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 (CCRs), consumers in the UK who purchase goods online have 14 days from the date of receipt of those goods to cancel their order and receive a refund, although many retailers offer a longer returns period. However, PLT is still allowing affected customers to exercise their right to return existing items within its 28-day returns period and is also refunding customers who have unused gift cards or store credit. Instead, PLT seems to be exercising its right (under existing T&Cs) to stop these users from placing new orders on the basis that they have violated the PLT Returns Policy.  

The PLT Returns Policy does permit PLT to block or restrict customer accounts at the company’s sole discretion in the event of customer non-compliance with the policy, the PLT T&Cs or in the event of suspected fraudulent activity. Given that PLT is solely an online retailer, many customers have deemed it unfair that their accounts have been closed based on a high returns rate, when they cannot visit any physical stores to try on clothing sold by PLT. Perhaps PLT could have been clearer in highlighting this policy to consumers. 

Despite this it may be that other retailers soon follow suit, and begin the same process, or otherwise find creative solutions to deter customers from returning items at high rates. Just in the last month, retailer Oh Polly began charging for returns at tiered rates depending on what proportion of an order a customer is returning, with the ability to increase return fees for customers who consistently have a high returns rate. We anticipate seeing more of this activity from online retailers in the coming months as free delivery and free returns continue to test e-commerce businesses. However, any retailers wishing to charge consumers for returns should ensure that this, and any additional costs to the consumer, are clearly communicated before the consumer places their order to ensure compliance with the CCRs.  

"For fashion retailers, covering the cost of returns can be expensive and they have to consider the environmental impact of using delivery trucks for this purpose too. More have been opting to shift costs on to customers as a result, as well as clamping down on returns by introducing stricter inspections to spot when clothes have been worn for an occasion and sent back after one use."

Tags

brands, technology, commentary