Retail refunds

[neil woods]

Hi

 

This is just a small note on refunds.

 

I have recently started a new job within a major high street store, and was a customer services course. this may have been posted but i could not find it here, so here goes.

 

If you were to buy any kind of merchandise at a sale price (ie £100 phone at £59.99) and you took it home and decided you did not like it and took it back to the place of purchase for a refund. ( as long as you are within the time period stated by the store, some say 28 days others say 14) but anyways take it back. But instead of asking for what you paid for the item (ie £59.99) you can ask for the full initial price of (£100) Some kind of loophole within the system.

 

This was told to a group of us whilst in customer training by a company who provides training for retail, have not tried it myself AS YET but it should work.

[Bookworm]

I'm afraid I'm going to ask you for the authority on this, and advise people not to even think of it until we have something more specific than "some kind of loophole".

 

If you have the receipt, it will show how much you've paid. I can't see them paying back more than shows on the receipt. If you DON'T have the receipt, then you'd have problems showing that you had had the item less than 14/28 days. Either way, I am confused... :-?

 

If you can come back and quote the loophole you're talking about, that would be great. ;-)

[neil woods]

Dont have any actual proof on this, but as you say you do require the reciept to show what price you paid.

 

We were told this by a customer server trainer who specialised in customer services which deals with all the refunds and returns. So as i said we told told rather than shown it. Am sure there is someplace that will have this writeen down but it is finding it.

 

Will search for it and post if i find it.

[Bookworm]

That would be great, thanks.

[blacksheep1979]

I doubt this one very much - and think it would be even harder to get than trying to get pcw etc to follow the sale of goods act.

[sazz]

A company is not going to give you more cash than what you paid for it.

 

I think your 'Customer Service' trainer should go on a training course herself!

[neil woods]

No skin of my nose, just passing on info.

 

heard exact same thing today from someone else within the store.

 

But isnt everyone scepitical when they hear something to good to be true for the first time

[reidnet]

Which Store ?

[pcr1]

It's not a legal loophole. If you just change your mind, you're not entitled to anything at all, let alone more than you paid! Any refund given is a gesture of goodwill.

[Bankben]

There is a loophole, although you cant gain money, only store credit. I once bought an item on sale and returned it when the price had gone back up, although i had misplaced my receipt. They refunded me the full price of the item without question as a credit note, and even though i told them i paid less, they were still happy to refund the higher value because neither the store or myself could remember the exact sale price (Was a pair of jeans around £30-£45 quid).

[stardust_john]

Very dishonest behaviour to encourage a deliberate attempt to take more than given. You have to remember its often very hard to get back what someone is entitled to when things go wrong and companies cant be bothered. Maybe their attitude is marred by potential fraudsters because intentional dishonesty is fraud.

 

We just want whats ours, thats all !

[kennythecelt]

Hello Bankben and welcome to CAG.

 

I see that this is your first post.

 

CAG does not condone such behaviour and would never support this.

 

However, I note that you did say the honest thing to the cashier when this happened to you and told them that you had paid less. That was an honest thing to do.

[Lefty]

I think where the confusion lies in with REPLACEMENTS rather than REFUNDS.

 

For example...

 

Customer buys a product during a sale and, shortly after discovers a (possible) manufacturer's fault. Customer then returns the product to the store and, under SOGA legislation, the stores feels it is more practical to REPLACE the product rather than REPAIR the product.

 

However, the sale has ended and the product is now back on sale at a higher price. Therefore, the REPLACEMENT product is of a higher value than the originally purchased product.

 

There is NO WAY that a retailer should (or, indeed, would they be expected to) refund a higher price for a faulty product than that was originally paid.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

 

 

PS - I suggest you take notes and try not to fall asleep next time you attend a training course! (just joking)...

Edited May 8, 2008 by Lefty

[gyzmo]

what an item is priced at and what you pay for it are two entirely separate things. For the item, the consideration is the money you hand over. In seeking recission of the contract each party should be re-instated to the pre-contractual. Expecting the full cash price on a reduced price item is, in my opinion, and in law, ridiculous. Of course there are situation where this might happen, but as stated this can constitute fraud or deception, or it may happen as a goodwill gesture. But entitlement to such? Absolutely not.