Heatons denied refund!

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

I think the only fraud by a store manager that writing down names and addresses is going to prevent is for store managers who don't have access to a phone book which gives hundreds of thousands of local names and addresses.

Boggles

foggy_lad wrote: »

i thought this was a bit much so refused to sign well the flurry of excitement that followed would make the A-Team look like Scouts i immediately surrounded by security guard and 3 members of staff while i waited for the manager!

staw away from heatons and keep yuour Statutory Rights intact!!

Doesn't seem to be much sympathy for the OP, people saying he over reacted, etc. He was legally entitled to refuse and was threated like a shop lifter, I think it was the store that over reacted, correct?

A store can bring in all the policies they want, they can ask you to stand on one leg while they give you a refund, that doesn't mean you have to, the law of the land trumps all. It's not our problem if the shop has a problem with fraud, no more is it our problem if there is a spillage in fruit & veg, it's their problem.

Fair play to the OP.

ejmaztec

Commander Vimes wrote: »

any store that sacked someone for that would find themselves in court very quickly for unfair dismisal since it is not only possible but extremely likely that the customer did it himself. now if the hand writing was the same on all of them....

Having carried out hundreds of audits over the years, none of the perpetrators who myself and my colleagues happened upon, ever had the neck to claim unfair dismissal, having been caught red-handed. Some of them operated in collusion with friends or family, visiting the premises, so the hand-writing was never the same.

Even if a person is innocent, the doubt is there for evermore, especially as the person who has given fake details can't be traced.

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

we all have lots of rights but sometimes, such as this time, its not appropriate to exercise them. they asked for your name and address as many, many shops do when giving refunds. they did not tie you down and shine a light in your eyes. all you had to do was put in fake details and the whole fuss would have been unnecessary.

Well thats hardly helping the company combat fraud, by providing fraudlant details. Worse than providing no information.

Sam Vimes

ejmaztec wrote: »

Having carried out hundreds of audits over the years, none of the perpetrators who myself and my colleagues happened upon, ever had the neck to claim unfair dismissal, having been caught red-handed. Some of them operated in collusion with friends or family, visiting the premises, so the hand-writing was never the same.

Even if a person is innocent, the doubt is there for evermore, especially as the person who has given fake details can't be traced.

well i'm not talking about people who were actually stealing, i'm talking about people who did nothing wrong and were sacked because a customer signed a fake name. there'd always be some other evidence to go on than a few receipts with fake details if the person was actually stealing. did you ever sack someone on no evidence other than the recipt details?

Boggles wrote: »

Well thats hardly helping the company combat fraud, by providing fraudlant details. Worse than providing no information.

the OP was talking about his rights being infringed. he doesn't give a monkeys if he's helping the shop combat fraud and i wouldn't either tbh. i've signed my name to a good few of those things. i knew i didn't have to and i wasn't doing it out of some kind of sense of responsibility to the shop. i just knew that refunds can be difficult things to get and i didn't want to do anything to make it more difficult

Saruman

To be honest, while i understand why the OP might be a little pissed off.. im curious... did he simply say "no thanks, i would rather not fill that out" all the while smiling? Or did he get as belligerent as he comes across in his post, advising people not to shop in heatons because they gave him the refund he asked for?

Even if he made no threatening body language or said anything threatening, perhaps the staff are under instruction to get security for the protection of staff in case the customer gets violent... which is something im sure happens from time to time.

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

the OP was talking about his rights being infringed. he doesn't give a monkeys if he's helping the shop combat fraud and i wouldn't either tbh. i've signed my name to a good few of those things. i knew i didn't have to and i wasn't doing it out of some kind of sense of responsibility to the shop. i just knew that refunds can be difficult things to get and i didn't want to do anything to make it more difficult

His case was consumer law 101, he bought product, product faulty, therefore moneys back.

How can a refund be hard get in that situation?

Boggles

Saruman wrote: »

To be honest, while i understand why the OP might be a little pissed off.. im curious... did he simply say "no thanks, i would rather not fill that out" all the while smiling? Or did he get as belligerent as he comes across in his post, advising people not to shop in heatons because they gave him the refund he asked for?

Even if he made no threatening body language or said anything threatening, perhaps the staff are under instruction to get security for the protection of staff in case the customer gets violent... which is something im sure happens from time to time.

Doesn't matter if the OP was belly laughing and doing a jig, he didn't have to provide the details he was asked for.

Saruman

No he did not have to, who said he did? What has that statement got to do with anything?

Anyway just because you have consumer rights, does not mean shops want to let you have them or even know about them. for instance, i buy a laptop.. its doa, i bring back and they want to send it off for repair?? I say no i would like a new one, or a refund Both of which im entitled to but they may refuse and force me to take legal action with the small claims court...
the OP had a much simpler encounter, refund was offered, all he was asked to do was fill out a quick form which everyone asks for. Instead if simply doing it, he caused a scene and was probably held up by doing so.
I think thats the point here, while he is under no obligation to fill out the form.. for the sake of expediency he could have simply done it.. or scribbled a few lines or crap to satisfy them.

Boggles

Saruman wrote: »

No he did not have to, who said he did? What has that statement got to do with anything?

Anyway just because you have consumer rights, does not mean shops want to let you have them or even know about them. for instance, i buy a laptop.. its doa, i bring back and they want to send it off for repair?? I say no i would like a new one, or a refund Both of which im entitled to but they may refuse and force me to take legal action with the small claims court...
the OP had a much simpler encounter, refund was offered, all he was asked to do was fill out a quick form which everyone asks for. Instead if simply doing it, he caused a scene and was probably held up by doing so.
I think thats the point here, while he is under no obligation to fill out the form.. for the sake of expediency he could have simply done it.. or scribbled a few lines or crap to satisfy them.

How do you know he created a scene?, according to his post he just refused, which he was entitled do.

Don't know where your going with your hypothetical laptop situation. Op's case actually happened, much easier deal with that.

magnumlady

egan007 wrote: »

I can see it now......

hee hee that is so funny.

I've had to give my name and address in loads of stores where I've had faulty items:
PC World, Tesco, Dunnes, Penneys, Homebase don't see the problem

MrPudding

Roundtower2 wrote: »

I think the only fraud by a store manager that writing down names and addresses is going to prevent is for store managers who don't have access to a phone book which gives hundreds of thousands of local names and addresses.

And when that person randomly selected by the manager form the phone book is called and asked to confirm the details of their refund as part of a fraud investigation?

That was the point of collection contact details for the person getting the refund, and this was something that we always explained to the person getting the refund. Of course it is not a foolproof way to stop fraud, if someone really wants to defraud a company they work for they will manage somehow to do it. Just making it that little bit harder and making it seem that little bit more likely you will be caught is probably enough to put most people off it.

And in my time in Currys, where I probably processed dozens and dozens of refunds, I never had anyone refusing to give details.

MrP

MrPudding

magnumlady wrote: »

PC World, Tesco, Dunnes, Penneys, Homebase don't see the problem

Most reasonable people don't.

MrP

Boggles

MrPudding wrote: »

Most reasonable people don't.

MrP

There are alot of perfectly good "reasonable" people out who would not like to give out their personal details especially when they have no obligation to do so.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

His case was consumer law 101, he bought product, product faulty, therefore moneys back.

How can a refund be hard get in that situation?

poorly trained staff, pr!cks, technicalities. there are many reasons why someone might not get what they're entitled to. take a look on this board for a few examples

Saruman wrote: »

for instance, i buy a laptop.. its doa, i bring back and they want to send it off for repair?? I say no i would like a new one, or a refund Both of which im entitled

while i agree with your point, you're not entitled to that. a repair is perfectly legal

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

poorly trained staff, pr!cks, technicalities. there are many reasons why someone might not get what they're entitled to. take a look on this board for a few examples



while i agree with your point, you're not entitled to that. a repair is perfectly legal

Your entitled to a replacement or complete refund, product has to work for a reasonable time under the law, the laptop was DOA.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

Your entitled to a replacement or complete refund, product has to work for a reasonable time under the law, the laptop was DOA.

it doesn't mention anything about that in the legislation

ejmaztec

Commander Vimes wrote: »

well i'm not talking about people who were actually stealing, i'm talking about people who did nothing wrong and were sacked because a customer signed a fake name. there'd always be some other evidence to go on than a few receipts with fake details if the person was actually stealing. did you ever sack someone on no evidence other than the recipt details?

Most of the people that came under the microscope admitted it and were dismissed by their management. If it was regarded as something minor, they were never prosecuted, just sent off with no references.

Where there was an element of doubt, those people were never dismissed. They were just watched very carefully. As I said in my previous post, with fake details on a refund document, nobody could prove it either way. When the doubt is there, the damage is done. A perfectly innocent person’s reputation is shot down in flames because no-one can prove that they are innocent. It’s always in the back of some manager’s mind that the person might have been up to no good. All this probably down to the moron who was having a bit of a laugh by giving false info. The innocent person on the till can’t prove 100% that they didn’t do the dirty because the joker’s existence can’t be proven.

I’ve never sacked anyone for anything. External auditors are simply spectators. We just watch the trouble that we’ve triggered, from a safe distance.

I find that smaller business concerns, with neurotic owners, who wouldn’t trust their own Granny, are more likely to sack someone on the spot, because they’ve jumped to conclusions and haven’t thought about the consequences. I’ve also known some who have actually called in the Guards, before doing anything else!

If some employer did sack someone without the proper evidence, and found himself in the middle of an Unfair Dismissal claim, there would still be people viewing the proceedings, who would be thinking that there’s no smoke without fire etc etc.

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

it doesn't mention anything about that in the legislation

Yes it does, repair, replacement, refund

You are entitled to one of the above, doesn't have to be the one the shop chooses.

Because the fact the product never did work, and assuming you notifyed the shop straight away. You did not accept faulty goods. Therefore you do not have to settle for a repair.

Oryx

Boggles wrote: »

Yes it does, repair, replacement, refund

You are entitled to one of the above, doesn't have to be the one the shop chooses.

Yes, it does.

Boggles

KtK wrote: »

Yes, it does.

Are you argeeing or disagreeing?

tvnutz

Boggles wrote: »

Are you argeeing or disagreeing?

He is disagreeing because you are wrong. You are entitled to a refund or replacement within the first month roughly,usually 28 days. Outside of that the item will always be sent off for repair and that is perfectly legal and does not infringe on your consumer rights. you buy an mp3 player somewhere and it breaks after 3 months you won't get a replacement (unless you bough extra insurance),it will be sent off for repair.

Boggles

tvnutz wrote: »

He is disagreeing because you are wrong. You are entitled to a refund or replacement within the first month roughly,usually 28 days. Outside of that the item will always be sent off for repair and that is perfectly legal and does not infringe on your consumer rights. you buy an mp3 player somewhere and it breaks after 3 months you won't get a replacement (unless you bough extra insurance),it will be sent off for repair.

Did you read the situation? the laptop was DOA.

tvnutz

Boggles wrote: »

Did you read the situation? the laptop was DOA.

Ye,like I mentioned,if it is within 28 days, he is entitled to a replacement or refund. Your posts that follow that situation do not refer to the laptop but are rather general and looks like you are saying customers are entitled to a refund or replacement at any time.

Boggles

tvnutz wrote: »

Ye,like I mentioned,if it is within 28 days, he is entitled to a replacement or refund. Your posts that follow that situation do not refer to the laptop but are rather general and looks like you are saying customers are entitled to a refund or replacement at any time.

No I was referring to that exact situation. Read it down through. So am I still wrong?

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

Yes it does, repair, replacement, refund

You are entitled to one of the above, doesn't have to be the one the shop chooses.

yes it does. i suggest you read the legislation

Boggles wrote: »

Because the fact the product never did work, and assuming you notifyed the shop straight away. You did not accept faulty goods. Therefore you do not have to settle for a repair.

that's a policy operated by most shops but its not a legal requirement. there's nothing about 28 days in the legislation

Boggles

Commander Vimes wrote: »

yes it does. i suggest you read the legislation


that's a policy operated by most shops but its not a legal requirement

I'm well versed thank you.

From the consumer association

"We'll exchange the product

If you are happy with a replacement product, take it. If not, remember you are not legally obliged to accept an exchange.

We'll give you a credit note

A credit note is a voucher for the same amount you paid for the product, which can be spent in the store or in others in the same chain. If goods are defective, you do not have to accept a credit note - you are entitled to a refund. If you do accept a credit note, check if there is a time limit on using it.

We'll repair it free of charge

If goods are not of merchantable quality, you do not have to accept a repair. You can insist on a refund or a replacement."

Oryx

KtK wrote: »

Yes, it does.

I was disagreeing. The choice of repair or refund or replacement is up to the shop. Regardless of what you see as reasonable or correct that is the cut and dried letter of the law.

Sam Vimes

Boggles wrote: »

If goods are not of merchantable quality, you do not have to accept a repair. You can insist on a refund or a replacement."

why would the question of a repair even arise if the goods were of merchantable quality?

and that link mentions nothing about whether the product was doa or not. at what point does someone have to accept a repair. that link gives no time line

Boggles

KtK wrote: »

I was disagreeing. The choice of repair or refund or replacement is up to the shop. Regardless of what you see as reasonable or correct that is the cut and dried letter of the law.

Your wrong.

See above post.