Tesco Misprices Discussion area part 7

ben500

spa2k wrote:

Can't say I've heard of bananaman.....

The tone of your other posts suggests a greater knowledge of historical happenings than you are letting on!!

I am history, I am also present and hopefully future.:cool:

Dormouse

The_Old_Bag wrote:

I was stood at cs desk ( where else do I spend my time !!) when a member of staff returned to cs desk obviously having checked out a customer complaint re OVERCHARGING. She was explaining to man that the SEL was
a) a mistake, and had..
b) been left there when it shouldn't have, and anyway it....
c) doesn't really apply to this item.
BUT
I will give you back XXX ( the difference) is that ok ?

In my (very limited, compared to many) R&R experience, this is one the trickiest situations to get an R&R - when the SEL refers to another product and the shelf-stacker is the one who's mucked up.

To me, and all of us here, it doesn't matter why we've been overcharged, but for some bizarre reason, Tesco don't like refunding in these cases where the wrong SEL has been put out (perhaps spa or Constantine can elaborate further on this).

I had my most annoying R&R attempt with one of these. The SEL referrred to a slightly different product (which was nowhere to be seen), and to anyone with any common sense, it was an overcharge. I had to talk to the CS and the duty manager for about 25 minutes and didn't get anywhere, they just would not budge and were being complete cows. :mad:

(BTW, we're talking a product costing £3 here, not a plasma telly! :rotfl: )

In the end, I had to phone HO and got an apology and my money back that way. They were great about it (although admitted that R&R does not usually apply in these cases, but gave me my money anyway because it was misleading, etc etc)

Incidentally, this was also my first visit to what is now my local Tesco, so that was a great way to introduce myself :rolleyes:

What I am trying to say here, The Old Bag, is that even if you had enlightened the other shopper about R&R, they might not have got it and it would perhaps have been a somewhat unpleasant first R&R experience for them.

spa2k

The reason that CS shouldnt refund on wrongly placed items is that the SEL does not refer to the product above it.

For example if you went into pc world and picked up an Intel processor but it has an Athlon SEL with a totally different price then what would you expect to be charged for?

Its an extreme example but is alot clearer than the ecover which im sure has confused many.

This is not a defence of the stance taken, merely an attempt to point out their point of view.

Constantine

a) Yep, Mr Walkling...very famous name :rolleyes: almost a generic term. But the only one.

b) I thought the banana incident was at Safeway with their ABC points where the points earned were worth more than the product. But I could be wrong...

c) What Spa said one post up.

sticher

Can I just clarify something. If the SEL is more than the price on the pack can you still claim R&R? In other words, you can get R&R whatever way round the difference is?

I thought I had my first R&R the other day, but when I took the item to CS and they went to check the SEL, it had already been removed!!!

The_Old_Bag

Dormouse wrote:

In my (very limited, compared to many) R&R experience, this is one the trickiest situations to get an R&R - when the SEL refers to another product and the shelf-stacker is the one who's mucked up.

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain it very well.:rolleyes:
I gather that it was a genuine R&R, but that the cs woman was trying to wriggle out of it by any excuse she could think of. She had brought the yellow sel with her to the desk, therefore 'removing' the sel, yet didn't show it to the customer.
If the SEL had been for a diffferent product why didn't she point out the difference between the product and sel by make, number, wording, anything ? She did none of this, she was just trying it on. After giving each different 'excuse' and what action she planned to take - give him the difference - she would add the bit " Is that ok ?"

I presume that the minute he accepted her offer, and took the refunded DIFFERENCE he couldn't then come back later and ask for a full R&R. ( esp as she had removed the evidence !;) )
As other posters have commented before, I assume once you have accepted an offer to 'resolve' an overcharging, you have accepted it, end of story.

mcdonag

sticher wrote:

Can I just clarify something. If the SEL is more than the price on the pack can you still claim R&R? In other words, you can get R&R whatever way round the difference is?

I thought I had my first R&R the other day, but when I took the item to CS and they went to check the SEL, it had already been removed!!!

It doesn't matter as long as you are charged the higher of the two prices.

In your case it wouldn't matter if the SEL was removed as long as you were charged the SEL price.

If you were charged the SEL price then it would be a definate R&R because the price charged would be higher than the pack price and you would have the price on the pack as your proof along with the receipt.

If you were charged the pack price and the SEL was higher then this would be an undercharge and R&R would not apply as you are the winner anyway by buying something cheaper than advertised.

Hope this makes sense.

mcdonag

massive reduction on my clubpoints total today. From 2229 to 697!! Is this because they have sent my points out to me in the post or is it a mistake that I need to contact them about?

Sparky67

THe cut off date was the end of July so it was due to happen any day now. Mine vitually disappeared overnight (left with a running balance of a measly 1000 or so points!) so I guess they're on their way!!

MFI here I come....

shoperholicnot

spa2k wrote:

The reason that CS shouldnt refund on wrongly placed items is that the SEL does not refer to the product above it.

For example if you went into pc world and picked up an Intel processor but it has an Athlon SEL with a totally different price then what would you expect to be charged for?

Its an extreme example but is alot clearer than the ecover which im sure has confused many.

This is not a defence of the stance taken, merely an attempt to point out their point of view.

Sorry, I am sort of newbie here and dont know much 'history', was there a mix up with product labels for Ecover?