There is an increasingly interesting definition of “good customer service” developing on the internet. It appears to go something like this: **Customer asks for something.** Business says yes. Excellent customer service. **Customer asks for something else.** Business says yes again. Outstanding customer service. **Customer changes their mind several weeks later.** Business explains that the applicable return period has now passed. Terrible customer service. One star. Avoid this company at all costs. Apparently, somewhere along the way, customer service stopped meaning “being polite, fair and helpful” and started meaning “the customer must ultimately receive whichever answer they would most like to hear”. Unfortunately, businesses occasionally have to say no. Not because they hate customers. Not because they are desperately clinging to one £50 sale while stroking it in a darkened room. Sometimes the answer is simply no because there are policies, deadlines, previous agreements and, rather inconveniently, a documented timeline. ## A recent review gave us a particularly good example The review actually began rather positively. The customer acknowledged that our messages through Not On The High Street had been pleasant in tone. Excellent. We were off to a promising start. The criticism was instead that our **customer service policy** needed to be reconsidered. According to the review, the customer received a ring, immediately told us it was not to their liking, explained that they were going on holiday, intended to return it afterwards, eventually sent it back asking for a refund, had the parcel unexpectedly returned to them, sent it again and was then astonished to learn that we would not accept the return because it had fallen outside the permitted timeframe. The review suggested that nobody had explained the relevant deadline. It quoted a friendly message from us saying: > “Return it when you're ready.” It referred to Not On The High Street having a 28-day returns policy. It invoked “commonsense and basic knowledge of contract law”. And finally, it wondered whether we could really be so desperate for one £50 sale that we would go to the trouble of refusing a delivery. It is a compelling story. There is just one small administrative inconvenience. That is not the sequence of events recorded in the messages. ## What actually happened? The customer contacted us on **21 July**. At that point, the requested resolution was an **exchange**. Not a refund. An exchange. We discussed returning the ring on that basis. The customer explained that they were going away and would return it afterwards. Our friendly response included words to the effect of returning it when they were ready. The customer then waited around three weeks before sending the ring back. By that point, something else had changed. They no longer wanted the exchange that had originally been discussed. They now wanted a refund. That distinction matters. So does the date. And this is where the apparently mysterious “14 days” enters the story. ## Not On The High Street does have a 28-day policy The review was absolutely correct about one thing. Not On The High Street does give customers 28 days for most cancellable products. But there is another sentence immediately afterwards which is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting. The platform's current policy says customers have **28 days to notify the seller that they want to return or exchange an eligible item, and then another 14 days to send it back**. Its return instructions repeat that the parcel should be sent back within 14 days of notifying the seller. ([Not On The High Street][1]) So: **28 days to tell the seller.** Then: **14 days to send the item back.** These are two separate periods. It is not: **28 days to notify the seller, followed by however long feels reasonable after a holiday.** The customer notified us on 21 July. The ring was not sent back within the following 14 days. It was returned around three weeks later. The fact that the initial notification was made within 28 days does not make the second deadline disappear. Not On The High Street even states elsewhere, in wonderfully compact language, that customers have 28 days to notify the seller “and another 14 days to send them back”. ([Not On The High Street][2]) There are two parts to the sentence. Both are important. ## Reading half a policy does not create a new policy This is perhaps the most useful lesson here. Quoting only the part of a rule that supports your position does not remove the rest of the rule. “The policy gives me 28 days.” Yes. To notify the seller. “And another 14 days to send the item back.” Also yes. That is rather like reading: > Bake for 30 minutes at 180°C. and announcing: > “The recipe clearly says 30 minutes.” before placing the cake in the airing cupboard. You have correctly identified some of the instructions. Unfortunately, the abandoned portion remains relevant. ## But you said, “Return it when you're ready” We did. This is a good example of how ordinary friendly language can later acquire a surprisingly ambitious legal career. When a business says: > “Return it when you're ready.” during a conversation about an exchange, what most people understand is: > “That's absolutely fine, send it back when you are able.” It is not generally intended to mean: > “By this informal sentence we hereby abolish all marketplace timeframes indefinitely and confer upon you a perpetual right to return this item for any remedy you may later choose.” Perhaps customer service teams need to start communicating exclusively through solicitors. > “Thank you for your message. We hope you enjoy your holiday. For the avoidance of doubt, the preceding expression of goodwill does not constitute a waiver, amendment, novation or eternal suspension of any applicable marketplace return deadline.” Warm. Human. Accessible. Exactly what everybody wants from a small jewellery business. There is, however, a useful lesson for businesses here too. If a deadline matters, spell it out. Friendliness and clarity are not enemies. “Of course, enjoy your holiday. Please just make sure it is posted back within the platform's 14-day return period.” That one additional sentence can save an extraordinary amount of interpretive archaeology later. ## An exchange and a refund are not the same request This part also disappeared somewhat in the eventual review. The original discussion was about an **exchange**. When the ring was eventually returned, the requested outcome had changed to a **refund**. Customers are completely entitled to change their minds. You may decide you no longer want the replacement. You may decide you would rather have your money back. There is nothing unreasonable about asking. But changing your mind does not reset the clock. Nor does an agreement to one proposed resolution automatically become an agreement to every possible resolution indefinitely. “I would like to exchange this” and “I am cancelling this purchase and want a refund” are different requests. If the circumstances have changed by the time the second request is made, the answer may change too. ## The mysterious return-to-sender parcel There was another complication. The customer's first return apparently came back to them. They believed Royal Mail was responsible. They then sent it again using a signed-for service and informed us that it was on its way. By this stage, however, the return period had already passed and the requested resolution had changed. We told the customer that we could not accept the return for a refund and that the parcel would therefore be refused. This was subsequently presented as extraordinary behaviour. “What?!” Why would a company possibly refuse delivery? Because we had already told the sender that we were unable to accept the return. Accepting possession of an item after explicitly explaining that it cannot be accepted creates an entirely new administrative problem. Now the business has the customer's property. The customer expects money. The business has already said a refund is not available. Someone then has to pay to send the item back again. More messages follow. Nobody is happier. Refusing a parcel that has been sent after the recipient has already said it cannot be accepted is not necessarily an act of corporate warfare. Sometimes it is simply the least confusing option remaining. ## “They can't be that desperate for one £50 sale” This is one of our favourite arguments because it sounds devastating until you think about it for approximately nine seconds. No. A business is not usually enforcing a return policy because the owner has become emotionally attached to one particular £50. The issue is not one sale. It is whether the business has a policy at all. Imagine running a shop under the following system: Returns must be made within the stated timeframe. Unless the customer forgets. Or goes on holiday. Or changes their mind later. Or is particularly annoyed. Or announces that the amount involved is too small for the business to care about. At which point the timeframe becomes optional. That is no longer a returns policy. It is a rough suggestion with an anger-based exemption system. And there is a slightly uncomfortable assumption hiding inside the “it's only £50” argument. If £50 is apparently too insignificant for a small business to care about losing, why is it simultaneously significant enough for the customer to write an extensive public complaint about? Fifty pounds cannot be both an inconsequential sum that the seller should casually surrender and a sufficiently serious loss to justify warning the public away from the business. It has to pick a personality. ## Small businesses cannot price in unlimited exceptions A £50 sale is not £50 profit. There are materials. Labour. Packaging. Postage. Marketplace commission. Payment fees. Tax. Time spent answering messages. Time spent processing returns. And, in the case of handmade businesses, somebody actually had to make the thing. If every policy becomes optional whenever enforcing it risks upsetting somebody, those costs do not disappear. They are simply redistributed. The customers who follow the rules end up subsidising the customers who do not. Eventually prices rise to accommodate all the exceptions. Or the business stops being viable. Neither outcome is especially customer-friendly. ## When did “no” become a customer service failure? This is the broader question. The review itself acknowledges that the messages were pleasant in tone. So the complaint was not that anyone had been rude. There were no allegations of insults. Nobody was ignored. Nobody was shouted at. The customer received responses. The situation was explained. The problem was that the answer was not the answer they wanted. That is not the same thing as bad customer service. A business can provide excellent customer service while still saying: **No.** It can say: “Unfortunately, we cannot accept this.” “We're sorry, but that period has now expired.” “We can't refund a personalised product.” “We cannot accept opened earrings for hygiene reasons.” “We can repair the damage, but it isn't a manufacturing fault.” “We can offer an exchange, but not a refund.” The quality of customer service is demonstrated by **how** those answers are delivered and whether they are fair. Customer service cannot reasonably mean that every conversation must eventually conclude with the customer being granted their preferred outcome. Otherwise customer service representatives are not actually making decisions. They are hostages with email accounts. ## “The customer is always right” Few phrases have done more damage to sensible commercial relationships. Customers can be right. Businesses can be right. Customers can misunderstand. Businesses can misunderstand. Businesses can behave badly. Customers can behave badly. Both can remember things differently. Both can misread policies. Both can make mistakes. This is because transactions involve human beings, and human beings remain distressingly resistant to perfect reliability. The useful question is not: **Who is the customer?** It is: **What actually happened?** Fortunately, online transactions leave records. ## Messages have timestamps This is the bit that online reviews sometimes forget. There is a written conversation. There are dates. There are order records. There is postage tracking. There are photographs. There is a record of what was originally requested. There is a record of what the business offered. There is a record of when that changed. Memory can be flexible. Message timestamps are considerably less imaginative. So when a review says: > “Nobody told me there was a 14-day period.” the business can look at the policy. When a review suggests the customer had always been seeking a refund, the business can look at the original conversation about an exchange. When a review says the item was returned promptly after a holiday, the dates can show how much time actually passed. This is why written records matter. Not because customers are inherently dishonest. Most are not. But once a disagreement becomes emotional, people's recollections often become impressively sympathetic to their own position. ## Reviews have an unusual power imbalance Reviews are incredibly important. They give customers a way to hold businesses accountable. That is a good thing. Poor service deserves criticism. Misleading products should be exposed. Businesses that behave badly should not be protected simply because criticism makes them uncomfortable. But review systems create an interesting problem. The customer generally gets to tell the story first. And a one-star rating gives that story considerable weight. A business then has a choice. Say nothing, allowing the account to stand unchallenged. Or respond, and risk being accused of being defensive. This becomes particularly difficult when a review does not merely contain an opinion, but presents a sequence of events that differs from the written record. There is an enormous difference between: > “I thought the policy was unfair.” and: > “The seller suddenly introduced a policy that had never applied.” The first is opinion. The second is a claim about what happened. There is also a difference between: > “I was unhappy that my refund was refused.” and: > “The seller refused to help me.” A customer can be genuinely unhappy with the outcome without the business having failed to help. ## Are customers allowed to lie in reviews? This is where we need a little nuance. A business usually cannot know whether an inaccurate review contains a deliberate lie, a misunderstanding, a selective memory or simply a very different interpretation of events. And that distinction matters. What we **can** say is that review systems can make it extraordinarily difficult for businesses to correct an inaccurate narrative. An opinion such as: > “I hated the customer service.” belongs to the customer. We may think it is unfair. We may produce fifty screenshots showing polite responses. It remains their opinion. But factual statements are different. Did the customer initially ask for an exchange? There is a message. Did they notify the seller on 21 July? There is a timestamp. Was the item sent back within 14 days? There is tracking. Did the request later become a refund? There is another message. These things are not matters of taste. And yet an inaccurate review may remain visible even when the business has records that tell a substantially different story. That is enormously frustrating for small businesses. The answer, however, is not that businesses should be able to delete any criticism they dislike. That would render reviews useless. The better answer is transparency. State the facts. State the timeline. Do not insult the reviewer. Do not speculate about their motives. Then let future customers decide who appears reasonable. ## A review should not become closing arguments for the prosecution Reviews are most useful when they describe the experience accurately. That includes details which may not strengthen the reviewer's case. If you originally requested an exchange, include that. If the business agreed to the exchange, include that. If three weeks passed before you returned the product, include that. If you subsequently changed the request to a refund, include that. If the seller remained polite throughout, include that. These details do not prevent you from saying: > “I still think the policy is unfair.” That is perfectly legitimate. What they do is allow other customers to understand the actual dispute. Without them, a review stops being an account of what happened and starts becoming advocacy. ## Businesses should be accountable too This is not a manifesto demanding that customers quietly accept whatever a seller says. Quite the opposite. If a business makes a mistake, it should own it. If we send the wrong item, that is our responsibility. If we miss a stated deadline, that is our responsibility. If we promise a refund and then change our minds, customers are entitled to challenge us. If our listing is misleading, we should correct it. If our communication is unclear, we should improve it. And there is one lesson we would take from this particular situation ourselves. Friendly phrases such as “return it when you're ready” can be interpreted more broadly than intended. So where a marketplace deadline applies, it is sensible to state it explicitly. That does not alter what happened here. It simply means there is something useful for us to learn from it too. Accountability works much better when everybody participates. ## Policies are not punishments Return deadlines are sometimes described as though the seller invented them specifically to catch an unsuspecting customer. They are not. They exist because transactions need an endpoint. At some stage, the seller needs to know whether the sale is complete. Stock needs to be accounted for. Payments need to be reconciled. Products seasonally change. Prices change. Items may be discontinued. A return window gives both sides certainty. Not On The High Street's own procedure is quite generous for most cancellable products, allowing 28 days to notify the seller and then a further 14 days to send the item back. ([Not On The High Street][1]) But generous does not mean infinite. A deadline remains a deadline even when somebody misses it by accident. ## Missing a deadline does not make someone a bad person This is important too. People forget things. They go on holiday. Parcels go astray. Life becomes busy. A customer missing a return deadline does not make them irresponsible, dishonest or unreasonable. It simply means they missed a deadline. Ask the business whether anything can be done. Sometimes an exception will be possible. Sometimes it will not. What becomes problematic is turning the refusal of that exception into evidence that the business has behaved improperly. There is a difference between: > “I missed the timeframe and they wouldn't make an exception.” and: > “They refused to honour their returns policy.” One describes disappointment. The other accuses the business of wrongdoing. Those are not the same review. ## Refusing an exception is not proof that nobody cares Small businesses care enormously about what customers think. Arguably too much. A negative review can ruin an entire evening. We read them while making dinner. We discuss them with our partners. We reread the message history wondering whether we could have worded something differently. We worry about how future customers will interpret them. The idea that a business enforcing a policy therefore “doesn't care what customers think” gets things almost perfectly backwards. Often the easy commercial decision would be to surrender. Refund the £50. Make the problem disappear. Buy the removal of a potential bad review. But good business decisions should not depend on who is most willing to damage the company's reputation if told no. If a policy is fair, it should apply to the quiet customer as well as the angry one. The person who politely accepts the deadline should not be treated worse than the person who threatens consequences. That would be a very strange definition of fairness. ## The common-sense conclusion Customers should absolutely hold businesses accountable. That is what reviews are for. If a seller is rude, say so. If they break their promises, say so. If they ignore their own policies, say so. If they provide terrible service, other customers deserve to know. But businesses are also allowed to have boundaries. They are allowed to enforce legitimate return periods. They are allowed to distinguish between an exchange and a refund. They are allowed to say that an item returned outside the applicable timeframe cannot be accepted. They are even allowed to refuse a parcel they have already told the sender they cannot accept. None of those things automatically become bad customer service simply because the answer was disappointing. In this case, the customer contacted us on 21 July about an exchange. The item was not sent back within the following 14-day return period. Around three weeks later, it was returned and the requested resolution had changed to a refund. That is the timeline. People are entirely free to believe that we should have made an exception. They are free to think our policy should be more generous. They are free to dislike our decision. What a one-star review cannot do is travel backwards through time and alter what was originally requested, when it was requested or when the item was actually returned. Good customer service requires businesses to be accountable for what they do. Fair reviewing should require exactly the same thing. Because sometimes a company says no. Sometimes the customer does not like that no. And sometimes, despite everything the star rating may suggest, **no was still the correct answer.** One detail I particularly like here is the £50 section. It turns the “you must be desperate for one sale” accusation around without sounding defensive. The other important addition is your own small concession about “return it when you're ready”. You can acknowledge that you would now make the deadline explicit, while still making it completely clear that a friendly sentence during an exchange conversation did not cause the three-week delay or change an exchange request into a refund request. [1]: https://info.notonthehighstreet.com/hc/en-us/articles/206411168-What-is-your-returns-policy?utm_source=chatgpt.com "What is your returns policy? – notonthehighstreet.com customer service" [2]: https://www.notonthehighstreet.com/pages/our-story?msockid=16786099462c6ce337e0767347916d23&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Who we are | notonthehighstreet.com"