I’m Tim, Married to Helen and father of three incredibly beautiful princesses whom are also known as monkeys, rascals, pains in the posterior and the loves of my life who I’d move heaven and hell for! I’m also the head of sales and support over at Incsub, LLC for WPMU DEV.

Oh, and I’m an absolutely terrible and extremely inconsistent blogger, don’t say I didn’t warn you! 😉

USC - The Next Huge Bankruptcy?

Following on from my earlier article “USC Going Out Of Business?” where they emailed me asking me to spend more money before issuing me a refund (I know, dodgy right?), I was interested to know if I were alone or not in my utter disgust of their treatment toward customers.

And it seems I am not, in fact there are a fair few that share a similar opinion. Review Centre give them a whopping 1.5 out of 5 stars, with a huge 13.6% of their users recommending USC. Here’s what some of them had to say:

USC - Poor Customer Service Review


Another one facing those rude staff. I can fully believe it!


OK, in this customers issue they found that a store is not obliged to refund something where the customer changed their mind and this is sadly correct. Not many stores in the UK refuse to refund (except where software or other similar digital items are purchased and used, which I totally understand) or at least not many I’ve come across anyway, most realise good customer service prevails.

But still the main issue for me here is that they (the customer) again found the staff to be rude, maybe their perspective was clouded because they didn’t like the refusal of a refund or maybe because there is an emerging pattern. based on my experience I’d be inclined to believe the latter.

USC is owned by the Sports Direct group, another shop that refuses refunds on non-faulty returns and one I do know. I buy from these guys, I’ve returned faulty items and had my money back, I’ve returned non-faulty items and I’m happy to get a credit note or swap it for something there and then. Sadly though, I’ve found a few times that staff there also appear to have an attitude issue, not all, and not all the time, certainly not all branches either. They’ve certainly never tried to flaunt the law with me when it came to faulty items.



OK, you’re probably asking why I included that last one right?

It’s simple, if what this customer states is true then it demonstrates a continued pattern with their willful neglect to flaunt the law as they please with multiple customers, i.e. me and many others like the ones mentioned in this article. Here is a quote from the Distance Selling regulation:

Who pays for returning the goods if the customer cancels an order?

If you want the customer to return the goods and to pay for that return, you must make it clear in the contract and as part of the required written information. If you did not include these details in the required written information then you cannot charge anything.

If you have included it and the customer then fails to return the goods, or sends them at your expense, you can charge them the direct cost to you of the return, but can’t deduct this amount from their refund. You are not allowed to make any further charges, such as a restocking charge or an administration charge.

In all circumstances, you will have to pay for the return of

substitute goods
goods that are faulty or do not comply with the contract.

In this customers case the size 5 is clearly a substitute (because it certainly wasn’t what they ordered), and a wrong one. The pair were also discoloured, a defect, a fault. So both of these are clearly stated under Distance Selling.

Want to know more?

Read here:

USC - Don't bother review

A lesson hard learnt unfortunately, if sent via the Royal Mail they could make a claim there. Personally as they are responsibly for postage of this return (USC’s fault in the first place) then I would have registered delivery for that because it wasn’t me that was footing the bill, USC would be. OK, I’m gonna stop defending USC, bad boy Tim!

And I’m going to stop writing in third person, wow that’s annoying ain’t it!

Seriously though, I feel for the customer. Hopefully he will know for next time. :'(

USC - Tragic, rude staff and terrible customer service review

USC - refund on faulty goods BEWARE! review


USC - worst service ever review


USC - Buyer expected to pay return postage on incorrect item review


OK, OK, I think my point is made here, flaunting of the law, terrible customer service and a lack of interest in ever making things right.

You can also find another ton of bad reviews right here:

There are other review type sites out there with similar horror stories, and yeah, there are some mighty good reviews too. But it definitely seems to be that the consensus is against them and whilst I won’t shop with them again, I will continue with Sports Direct for now only because they’re always rectified their mistakes.

Something else to mention here, anyone purchasing anything over £100 (and under £30k) using their credit card is covered under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Agreement Act in which your credit card company is also liable, you can read more about that here:

For me this isn’t any good, my purchase was less at £35 but in a number of those reviews it seems evident that they may well have a claim.

For those spending under £100 on your card you can still chat with your card issuer about disputing the payment, this is often referred to as a chargeback or just dispute. The company is also liable for this, and if they get too many complaints and disputes then Visa and MasterCard can actually refuse to let them accept those forms of payments within any USC stores. Imagine is that happened, USC would sure be up shit creek without a paddle!

I started the dispute process with my issuer. 🙂

If you’re still wondering why I chose the titles I did for these articles, well it’s because that is where this company will continue heading if it doesn’t doesn’t turn around the way they handle customers and their whole attitude.

Leave a Reply