Audit the Return Journey for Unfair Customer Friction

A practical journey audit helps UK ecommerce teams find unclear information, disproportionate steps and interface choices that make legitimate returns harder than necessary.

Review the whole journey, not only the policy page

A returns policy can read clearly while the actual journey remains difficult. A customer may have to locate an order, pass an account check, choose a reason, understand a charge, produce evidence, arrange carriage and monitor a refund. Each step may look reasonable in isolation, yet their combined effect can obscure a choice or turn a straightforward request into an avoidable support case. Audit the experience as a sequence from the first search for help through to the final outcome, including guest checkout, mobile screens and assisted support.

The Competition and Markets Authority's current unfair commercial practices guidance says the relevant provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 apply to commercial practices from 6 April 2025. It describes commercial practices broadly and explains that they can include post-contractual matters such as after-sales services. A return flow should therefore not be treated as a neutral back-office process that sits outside customer-facing review. The legal outcome depends on the facts; this article offers operational checks, not legal advice.

Make material information visible at the decision point

Section 227 of the Act addresses misleading omissions. It defines material information as information the average consumer needs to take an informed transactional decision, and says omission can include presenting information unclearly, too late or where the consumer is unlikely to see it. For returns teams, the practical task is to identify decisions made during the journey and place the relevant information before each decision. A link buried after confirmation cannot help someone choose between a paid label, their own postage or an available collection route.

Create a screen-by-screen content inventory covering eligibility, time limits, exceptions, return charges, available routes, evidence requests, expected next steps and support access. Check it against the published policy and the rules actually applied by staff and systems. Avoid relying on a single expandable panel for a consequence that materially changes the customer's choice. Where the answer depends on the return reason or item, explain that dependency plainly and reveal the applicable information as soon as the customer supplies the relevant fact.

Challenge every extra step and evidence request

Section 228 says that, when determining whether a practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence, account must be taken of whether it requires a consumer to take onerous or disproportionate action to exercise rights relating to a product. That does not mean every form field or verification check is prohibited. It does mean operators should be able to explain why a step exists, what risk it controls and whether a less burdensome route would work. A generic desire to reduce return volumes is not a sound design rationale for unnecessary friction.

List every required field, upload, contact and hand-off. Mark the owner, purpose, system dependency and cases in which it is genuinely needed. Ask whether an order reference and a proportionate identity check are enough before requesting repeated personal details. Do not demand photographs for every reason if they are only useful for a narrow damage assessment, and do not force a telephone call merely because the automated route cannot represent an ordinary exception. Give staff a documented alternative for customers who cannot complete the default digital step.

Inspect interface choices for pressure and imbalance

The CMA's online choice architecture research describes how the presentation and placement of choices can influence consumer decisions. It is research and analysis rather than a finding that a particular return screen is unlawful, but it gives teams a useful testing lens. Compare the prominence, wording and effort attached to each legitimate option. A store-credit choice should not dominate while a refund route is visually muted, and a cancellation control should not use ambiguous wording that makes proceeding and going back hard to distinguish.

Check buttons, defaults, colour, ordering, repeated warnings and confirmation screens on a real phone as well as a desktop. Remove invented scarcity or countdowns from a process unless a genuine, accurately calculated deadline needs to be communicated. Use factual wording for the consequences of each choice and avoid language designed to shame the customer. Where one route has a fee or a different refund method, state it before confirmation. Test with keyboard navigation and screen magnification too, because visual or interaction barriers can hide information unintentionally.

Test outcomes and keep an auditable change record

Run scenario tests for a guest order, a faulty item, a change-of-mind return, a bulky product, a customer without a printer and a request that needs human review. Record the screens shown, information available, clicks or contacts required, any evidence requested and whether the customer receives a durable confirmation. Then compare similar scenarios: unexplained differences between channels, products or customer groups may reveal rules that were added piecemeal and are no longer justified.

Monitor abandonment, repeated contacts, complaints, manual overrides and reasons staff cannot complete a return, but do not interpret a lower completion rate as proof that the design is successful. Review samples of failed and escalated journeys to identify genuine confusion or disproportionate effort. Give each change a named owner, rationale, approval date and review date, and retest after platform releases or policy updates. The goal is a return process that applies the retailer's rules consistently while letting customers see their options and complete legitimate requests without a procedural obstacle course.

Practical next steps

Audit the complete journey across mobile, desktop and assisted support.
Show relevant charges, choices and conditions before confirmation.
Document the purpose of every required field and evidence request.
Give customers a proportionate alternative when digital steps fail.
Test button prominence, defaults and wording for unintended pressure.
Review failed journeys instead of celebrating lower completion rates.