TK Maxx - no regard for consumer statutory rights

marleyboy

baddiebasher wrote: »

Well excuse me for not being a mathematician. My job is not to analyse percentages, but the nature of the complaints and their causes - that is what I am thorough in.

Can I suppose that you remember every single detail of your job?

Thought not.

YES, its what Im paid for, its my job, to know every whim of my duties, but especially a job that involves specifically percentages and ratios, surely if you analyse percentages, you should know specifically that, they dont involve random "roughly's" or "abouts".

Coupon-mad

d.edna wrote: »

I am a bloke and LOL they break another policy as they have to refund via the method of payment used, They should give a coupon back LOL

and no I am not following you around, why would I be. Its you following me is it the coupon I have in my pocket?

I take it back then. I meant 'one-man self-appointed Tesco gestapo'.

And you know as well as I do Tesco CS staff don't have a coupon in their pocket, they have a wrongly-priced SEL they've just swiftly removed to deny the unsuspecting customer at their CS desk a Double the Difference overcharge refund.

Chooochooo!:rotfl:

Mark7799

robpw2 wrote: »

its like some girl in tesco who was trying to convince the lady infront of me that her recipt wasnt enought to guarentee her the price she paid for something when she returned it 4 days later , as the vat reduction would now make it cheaper ,.

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick here but are you really saying a lady tried to take something back and get a refund because the VAT had gone down so it was now cheaper?

baddiebasher

marleyboy wrote: »

YES, its what Im paid for, its my job, to know every whim of my duties, but especially a job that involves specifically percentages and ratios, surely if you analyse percentages, you should know specifically that, they dont involve random "roughly's" or "abouts".

I specifically mentioned that my job does NOT involve analysing percentages etc. If you want to be sarcastic then go ahead.

you could at least try reading my posts properly before responding

10past6

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Chooochooo!:rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

marleyboy

Im sorry if you think its sarcastic, If you check I did QUOTE your post for you, note the bit where you say you "thoroughly"

My job involves complaint investigation and analysis and I do a thorough job -

I assumed with your ratio of percentages, that your analysis involved "percentages" as you did include them, I pointed out merely that they are incorrect when it comes to percentage ratios, which are specific.

A bank doesn't say an APR of about 5%, they could say "about a 5% increase" give or take, but even then would have to specifically state the ratio of a percentage, a total percent rate isnt "about 100%"

stugib

Mark7799 wrote: »

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick here but are you really saying a lady tried to take something back and get a refund because the VAT had gone down so it was now cheaper?

I read it that the customer tried to take something back with a receipt for the higher VAT price, and the CS advisor tried to say she was only entitled to the current (reduced VAT) price back as refund.

baddiebasher

marleyboy wrote: »

Im sorry if you think its sarcastic, If you check I did QUOTE your post for you, note the bit where you say you "thoroughly" I assumed with your ratio of percentages, that your analysis involved "percentages" as you did include them, I pointed out merely that they are incorrect when it comes to percentage ratios, which are specific.

A bank doesn't say an APR of about 5%, they could say "about a 5% increase" give or take, but even then would have to specifically state the ratio of a percentage, a total percent rate isnt "about 100%"

I meant, and said, the investigation and analysis of the complaint. And I do not see why you are getting so anal on the usage of approximations anyway - the exact firgures are unimportant. I was only trying to make a point. Jees - it's not like I need to carry my work with me everywhere in case I need to give a detailed explanation of it.

It seems that the whole point of this thing you have about the exactness of these figures is nitpicking purely for the sake of it.

marleyboy

I'm not intending to sound nitpicking, I apologise if that's how its come out, I was merely "correcting" the final results, So I am guessing you looked at the figures, rather than did the "analyses"? I am not disputing that the investigation of complaint is flawed, or that you are right or wrong, merely the figures.

Mutter_2

baddiebasher wrote: »

I'd agree that some of the posts are a little harsh, but the OP does come across a tad "get your back up". Like I said in my post, that does not excuse the denial of statutory rights, but there is a way of dealing with people.

I am no saying that this happened in this case, but if you go storming in to a shop with all guns blazing, you are likely to meet resistance.

In all cases when complaining, I remain polite, calm, firm and clear.

I have yet to not get a refund or remedy necessary to resolve a situation by following that practice

You've never returned faulty goods to Currys then.:D