Refused refund from Xtravision

axer

Chatmaster wrote: »

Lol so the sign says: No returns and under it says: This does not affect your statuatory rights


And for people who understand it, it reads:

No Returns
Ignore the above :pac:

The no returns bit can mean if your statutory rights are not affected then you cannot return the item e.g. if you realise you don't like the colour etc. thus the sign would be entirely legal.

Chatmaster wrote: »

But obviously you have to be told it's Ex-Display or B Grade? I only ever saw B-Grade on Maplins website.

If you are told that the goods are seconds or that there is x flaw with them then you may not have the right to rememdy if something goes wrong. It all depends on what you were told.

consultech

This issue barely even needs discussion - You have every right to demand a full refund as the good/service you paid for isn't fit for it's intended purpose...

What is of more note is retailers who refuse to acknowledge the relevant piece of consumer-protective legislation, either by ignorance or intended law-breaking;

I had a similar situation with Xtra-vision after buying guitar hero 3. Guitar didn't work with playstation and I brought it back, fully open to a replacement. That was the last in stock apparently and when I asked for a refund I was told they can't give me one coz it's "store policy" and a "manager's signature" is needed. Low and behold there was no manager there, because they go home at half 5/don't work weekends. I am a full time working professional (who plays guitar hero ) and there wasn't a hope of me gettin near the shop by 5:30.

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

Sam Vimes

consultech wrote: »

This issue barely even needs discussion - You have every right to demand a full refund as the good/service you paid for isn't fit for it's intended purpose...

refund, repair or replacement at the retailers discretion is what it says in the sale of goods and services act

consultech wrote: »

What is of more note is retailers who refuse to acknowledge the relevant piece of consumer-protective legislation, either by ignorance or intended law-breaking;

I had a similar situation with Xtra-vision after buying guitar hero 3. Guitar didn't work with playstation and I brought it back, fully open to a replacement. That was the last in stock apparently and when I asked for a refund I was told they can't give me one coz it's "store policy" and a "manager's signature" is needed. Low and behold there was no manager there, because they go home at half 5/don't work weekends. I am a full time working professional (who plays guitar hero ) and there wasn't a hope of me gettin near the shop by 5:30.

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

so you threatened to sue a girl working a minimum wage job for doing as her manager had told her. Good man, you should be proud of yourself. I know that when i worked in such jobs i was just lying whenever i said i wasn't allowed to do what a customer asked and as soon as they threatened me i was suddenly allowed to help them without getting sacked

leeroybrown

Sam Vimes wrote: »

refund, repair or replacement at the retailers discretion is what it says in the sale of goods and services act

If the consumer is unhappy with the option offered they have the right to request an alternative. In consultech's case repair was not a reasonable option due to the age of the product and the store proved unable to provide the preferred option of replacement. Refund became the only option available.

Kensington

consultech wrote: »

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

Wow, must make you feel so good. Threatening some poor sod who doesn't make any of the policies of the store, has no say whatsoever as to when a refund can/cannot be processed, probably has no authority to issue a refund if/when the situation arrises and would probably be issued a written warning should she override policy just to give you what you want. Well done sir.

Sam Vimes

leeroybrown wrote: »

If the consumer is unhappy with the option offered they have the right to request an alternative. In consultech's case repair was not a reasonable option due to the age of the product and the store proved unable to provide the preferred option of replacement. Refund became the only option available.

i realise that. What he said is that the op is entitled to a full refund as the good is not fit for its intended purpose. That's not the reason he's entitled, the reasons are as detailed above, ie a replacement has been attempted and a repair doesn't apply to this situation

KTRIC

I had the same problem with Xtra-Vision in Walkinstown. Every bloody movie we rented was damaged in some way.

In the end I just went in and handed them back my membership card. They're a bunch of chancers and don't give a sh!t about their customers.

consultech

Kensington wrote: »

Wow, must make you feel so good. Threatening some poor sod who doesn't make any of the policies of the store, has no say whatsoever as to when a refund can/cannot be processed, probably has no authority to issue a refund if/when the situation arrises and would probably be issued a written warning should she override policy just to give you what you want. Well done sir.

My God you're all spectacularly uptight...

If the above scenario was actually true she wouldn't have been bothered by my threat at all, would have simply claimed duress from the management should her actions ever be legally challenged, and definitely wouldn't have u-turned as fast as she did.

The fact that she was able to dip her hand in the register as fast as she refused to give me a refund is testament to the fact that decisions to give refunds are clearly discretionary.

Sam Vimes

consultech wrote: »

The fact that she was able to dip her hand in the register as fast as she refused to give me a refund is testament to the fact that decisions to give refunds are clearly discretionary.

or more likely you scared her into doing something she wasn't allowed to do and got her in trouble with the management and may have got her disciplined or even sacked

javaboy

Consultech was in the right. The store and its employees were at fault. End of story.

It's not his fault he had to use a somewhat intimidating tactic to get what he is entitled to. That's a problem for her to take up with her manager.

What was he supposed to do? Let them hang on to his money until they feel like giving it back to him? The customer was inconvenienced enough. They shouldn't have to be inconvenienced any further.

Sam Vimes

javaboy wrote: »

Consultech was in the right. The store and its employees were at fault. End of story.

It's not his fault he had to use a somewhat intimidating tactic to get what he is entitled to. That's a problem for her to take up with her manager.

What was he supposed to do? Let them hang on to his money until they feel like giving it back to him?

he should have contacted the person who made the policy and had some say over whether the policy should be enforced instead of scaring a teenager into risking her job

you're right in that the policy isn't his fault but it's not her fault either

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

he should have contacted the person who made the policy and had some say over whether the policy should be enforced instead of scaring a teenager into risking her job

you're right in that the policy isn't his fault but it's not her fault either

So he bought something at a shop. It doesn't work. He brings it back and asks for a replacement. They haven't got any left. He asks for a refund. The employee won't give him one and he's supposed to go jumping through hoops contacting the person who made the policy?

That's absolutely ridiculous. I know the girl is not the main culprit here but that's not the customer's problem. The customer shouldn't have to make the kind of effort you're talking about in order to get the refund he's entitled to.

The girl's job is very unlikely to be at risk.

Sam Vimes

javaboy wrote: »

So he bought something at a shop. It doesn't work. He brings it back and asks for a replacement. They haven't got any left. He asks for a refund. The employee won't give him one and he's supposed to go jumping through hoops contacting the person who made the policy?

The girl's job is very unlikely to be at risk.

i take it you've never worked somewhere where you were threatened for doing your minimum wage job and told you'd be held personally responsible for something you had no control over then?

javaboy wrote: »

That's absolutely ridiculous. I know the girl is not the main culprit here but that's not the customer's problem. The customer shouldn't have to make the kind of effort you're talking about in order to get the refund he's entitled to.

and she's not being paid enough to put up with that kind of shite. Would you be saying this if it was your girlfriend?

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i take it you've never worked somewhere where you were threatened for doing your minimum wage job and told you'd be held personally responsible for something you had no control over then?

I have actually. The difference is I didn't enforce any policies that conflicted with people's statutory rights.

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and she's not being paid enough to put up with that kind of shite. Would you be saying this if it was your girlfriend?

Then she should quit or ask for more money or tell her employer to fix their policies.

I would tell my girlfriend to give the refund and hold out for an unfair dismissal case if the employer sacked her for not breaking the law.

Sam Vimes

javaboy wrote: »

I have actually. The difference is I didn't enforce any policies that conflicted with people's statutory rights.

i'd say you didn't last long if you constantly did things that you had no right to do tbh

and a policy that only managers are allowed give refunds doesn't conflict with anyone's statutory rights. It's not xtra vision's problem that their manager working hours aren't convenient for him

javaboy wrote: »

Then she should quit or ask for more money or tell her employer to fix their policies.

"quit your job" isn't really a solution to the problem in fairness. Principles are all well and good but you're the only one who suffers when you can't pay your bills because you didn't like that managers don't work late

javaboy wrote: »

I would tell my girlfriend to give the refund and hold out for an unfair dismissal case if the employer sacked her for not breaking the law.

the unfair dismissals legislation only applies to people who've been employed for more that a year. I wonder how long she's been working there....and even if she had been there more than a year, that's an awful lot to go through because someone threatened her for someone else's policy

bottom line he had no right to threaten her

javaboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'd say you didn't last long if you constantly did things that you had no right to do tbh

Well we didn't have too many policies that caused problems so it wasn't really an issue.

and a policy that only managers are allowed give refunds doesn't conflict with anyone's statutory rights. It's not xtra vision's problem that their manager working hours aren't convenient for him

Of course it's Xtravision's problem. If the customer is in the right, the company should be accommodating him, not the other way around.

"quit your job" isn't really a solution to the problem in fairness. Principles are all well and good but you're the only one who suffers when you can't pay your bills because you didn't like that managers don't work late

Well I gave two other possible solutions too but yeah I'll admit none of them are great options. Your solution, that the customer should have to contact head office to speak to whoever makes the policies and jump over fences to get the refund he's entitled to, isn't much better imo.

the unfair dismissals legislation only applies to people who've been employed for more that a year. I wonder how long she's been working there....and even if she had been there more than a year, that's an awful lot to go through because someone threatened her for someone else's policy

I was only joking really about the unfair dismissals route although I don't believe any employee should be made to enforce a policy like that one.

Anyway, this is getting way off the original topic so I'm gonna leave it there.

Kensington

Sure the customer was inconvenienced but it still doesn't give anyone any right whatsoever, to threaten and intimidate someone who is, at the end of the day, just doing what they're told to do (debatable as the case may be).

If the customer went to the bother of ringing up to threaten the girl then surely he/she could just as easily have contacted the manager of the store to have a word, no? Or demanded that the employee who refused to give the refund get the store manager to contact him/her the next time they were in?

SoupyNorman

javaboy wrote: »

Consultech was in the right. The store and its employees were at fault. End of story.

That is one of the most ridiculous remarks Ive ever seen. The EMPLOYEES are at fault for how the store/management govern. The employees i.e. minimum wage, dispensable pawns are there to make a few quid, they are given basic responsibilities and therefore thats what should be expected on the customers behalf.

javaboy wrote: »

It's not his fault he had to use a somewhat intimidating tactic to get what he is entitled to. That's a problem for her to take up with her manager.

Yes it is his fault, he's a spineless coward who is the perfect example of someone who will capitalize on the opportunity to exploit a chance to scare someone who knows no better rather then take the issue up with a manager where they will be a whole lot more assertive and knowledgeable on any said matter.

javaboy wrote: »

What was he supposed to do? Let them hang on to his money until they feel like giving it back to him? The customer was inconvenienced enough. They shouldn't have to be inconvenienced any further.

See the manager, they may not have been there then but its not a traveling shop. The managers are not as elusive as the South American Ant Eater, a little cop on would go far here.

consultech wrote:

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

Seems a tad trollish to me!


I reckon that if you had indeed called to inform this girl of your intentions I would assume that some time would have passed until you were next in the shop. Common sense would certainly dictate that the employee would immediately pick up the phone and call their manager to say they've been threatened with legal action to which the manager would've quickly quipped that the customer was speaking directly through his farthole.

tony1kenobi

consultech wrote: »

I eventually only got a refund because I got the name of the girl in the shop who refused me, and called her to tell her it was her name that my solicitor would be referencing when filing an official complaint to the relevant authority (NCA). She was more than open to helping me then...

If you were able to ring the shop to talk to the girl why didn't you just ring the store to talk to the manager? Your solicitor probably keeps similar hours to the manager of Xtravision so your job doesn't prevent you from conducting at least that amount of personal business during your working day. You probably could have sorted it out with the store manager in a matter of moments, without ever having to make an ass of yourself. I am a grown up so I don't know how much a video game costs. Is it less than the price of a consultation/solicitors letter?

parsi

As xtravision is a shop chain that has extended opening hours I wonder is there a case for them to be answer if they only process refunds during 9-5 ?

A large part of their business must surely be transacted after their manager's working hours ...

OrangeDaisy

Having worked in the retail industry myself for many years, it never ceases to amaze me how arrogant some people are. Who on earth has the right to treat someone like that and expect to be treated with respect? That poor girl was probably scared for her jod, is your refund more important than her job? If you'd just calmed down and realised that you'd have to wait (managers are allowed to have a life too you know!!) you could've spared yourself looking like a big bully and her a night of worry about what would be said to her the next day!!
I hope you feel really proud of yourself and realise what a fool you made of yourself!!

enda1

I'm sure he didn't scare her as much as when she was held up for the fifth time...

Everyone who I know who has worked in XtraVision has been held up, so I'm sure she'll survive the poor dear...

I hate when shops spout that ****e, managers only.

Speak with your money to be honest and just don't go to places with shít customer service.

javaboy

OrangeDaisy wrote: »

Having worked in the retail industry myself for many years, it never ceases to amaze me how arrogant some people are. Who on earth has the right to treat someone like that and expect to be treated with respect? That poor girl was probably scared for her jod, is your refund more important than her job? If you'd just calmed down and realised that you'd have to wait (managers are allowed to have a life too you know!!) you could've spared yourself looking like a big bully and her a night of worry about what would be said to her the next day!!
I hope you feel really proud of yourself and realise what a fool you made of yourself!!

Why should he have to wait though? They have his money. He is due it back because Xtravision didn't hold up their end of the contract. It's reasonable to expect to be able to get your money back during the shop's trading hours.

You're right though. The girl was probably scared for her job but that's not entirely the customer's fault. The management created a system where a customer can only get refunded when it suits the company. Any problems that crop up as a result of that policy are the management's fault imo.

rubadub

viv2 wrote: »

I dont think you get to choose which of the 3 r's (replace,refund,repair) you get.Its the store that choose and if they offered a replacement they have done all they have to do.

I thought that was changed ages ago, I though if you bought something which is broken/faulty you can get a full cash refund now. But if it is under warranty the company has the option of the 3Rs. I am not sure about the time frame you have to declare something faulty upon purchase, rather than warranty though.

Dunno how this applies to rental items, they could come under a whole other spectrum.

javaboy wrote: »

The management created a system where a customer can only get refunded when it suits the company. Any problems that crop up as a result of that policy are the management's fault imo.

Exactly, it is not like this is a one off oddball case for XtraVision, it must happen several times a day, "no manager" is a cop out, are people meant to take a half day from work to get their few quid or a replacment back? Seems a cozy little scam they have going.

However if they did just refund the money rather than the same disc I expect every little runt would go back claiming it didn't work, or worse, scratching it to show it is really bad.

Shelflife

Ahhh just to clarify here, we are talking about a rental and approx €6 ??
why wouldnt a shop credit suffice ? i mean sure youd be using the shop again soon wouldnt you?

why do people feel they have to make a big issue over small things.
There are far bigger things to be worrying about then a €6 rental.

And if you want to be thick about it how are the store to know that it wasnt you who damaged it????

consultech

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055401234

John Sheehy

enda1 wrote: »

I'm sure he didn't scare her as much as when she was held up for the fifth time...

Everyone who I know who has worked in XtraVision has been held up, so I'm sure she'll survive the poor dear...

I hate when shops spout that ****e, managers only.

Speak with your money to be honest and just don't go to places with shít customer service.

If I am not permitted to perform a refund on a faulty product BUT I do so anyway I will get fired. Companies fire people for doing this on the grounds that the person will A: **** up and lose the company's money because the person is not trained properly or B: The person is stealing the company's money under the pretense of "doing a refund".

People aren't doing it to get one over on you or out of laziness, it's because they just aren't allowed/don't know how and if they were to attempt doing a refund their employer could see it as stealing or gross(?) misconduct - both which lead to getting fired.

John Sheehy

javaboy wrote: »

You're right though. The girl was probably scared for her job but that's not entirely the customer's fault. The management created a system where a customer can only get refunded when it suits the company. Any problems that crop up as a result of that policy are the management's fault imo.

I just can't see why he couldn't, on his lunch break, ring xtravision, speak to a manager, find out the managers name and then threaten the manager with legal proceedings. Instead he threatened some low level employee who shouldn't have to deal with that kind of stuff at all.

At best the girl went to a manager and explained the situation and the manager resolved the problem - a process that could have been expedited had he rang the manager in the first place. At worst some girl hurried through a refund without permission and got a warning or fired.

But I'm kind of going to call bull**** on the whole thing because the poster didn't give any details of what the girl did so that he could get his money back...

javaboy

John Sheehy wrote: »

I just can't see why he couldn't, on his lunch break, ring xtravision, speak to a manager, find out the managers name and then threaten the manager with legal proceedings. Instead he threatened some low level employee who shouldn't have to deal with that kind of stuff at all.

Why should he have to ring on his lunch break? The company is at fault. It shouldn't take any more of the customer's time to get it resolved. It's not the customer's fault that the combination of store policy and manager working hours means he can't get refunded during certain hours.

As far as I'm concerned, if they are willing to conduct business during the hours a manager isn't there, they should be prepared to refund people when necessary as part of that.