River Island refusing to refund even with a receipt!

Loanranger

May I suggest that we all leave this thread well alone from now on?

Muffinmaker hasn't listened and is never likely to listen.

Why feed her any more?

bluenoseam

Muffinmaker wrote: »

Well I've written a letter to the head offce already so we will see what they have to say about it. Whatever I expect someone who is a branch manager to deal with me with courtesy and respect and I wasn't being aggressive towards her at all. She just couldn't be bothered. The offer to look at the records was half-hearted. She retracted it as soon as she said it by expressing impatience with me because I said that couldn't recall the day that I did the exchange. Like I say, their loss.

Anyway... those that have been disrespectful towards me are showing their true colours. I think you're just being unnecessarily nasty. Whatever, whoever is upsetting you in your life take it out on them not anonymously on a forum which has been set up to champion consumer rights! And none of the "haters" strike me as expert in anything because what a lot of you have said is total poppycock.

First off, you weren't entitled to a refund, that much is blatantly obvious as the goods were NOT in the condition sold - you had removed tags and as a result they could not have been resold.

The reason the manager "expressed impatience" is probably due to a lack of information - having asked for something you had no right to it would have atleast been courtesy to give a ballpark day you exchanged the item. The manager would have had to check the electronic till roll, which at times can be a pain in the backside and you're expecting them to do that without any information other than it was an exchange with the item code? That would take a considerable amount of time which there are no guarentees the manager could actually provide.

You insist you weren't agressive, but bearing in mind that agression doesn't always mean you threaten or abuse someone - the manager could rightly have taken the view you were being unreasonable in your request which had previously been denied. None of us know the situation, but ultimately it's a case of if you were told "i'm sorry i can't do that" or words to that effect then you must accept that given the situation. Generally speaking (and i know this is personal ways of dealing with things) if i said to a customer twice i would expect them to understand it wasn't going to happen - a third time would be considered cheek on their part and no one in retail is paid to put up with cheek!

Zandoni

bluenoseam wrote: »

First off, you weren't entitled to a refund, that much is blatantly obvious as the goods were NOT in the condition sold - you had removed tags and as a result they could not have been resold.

Ridiculous statement, they can easily be replaced by the shop staff.

bluenoseam wrote: »

You insist you weren't agressive, but bearing in mind that agression doesn't always mean you threaten or abuse someone - the manager could rightly have taken the view you were being unreasonable in your request which had previously been denied. None of us know the situation, but ultimately it's a case of if you were told "i'm sorry i can't do that" or words to that effect then you must accept that given the situation. Generally speaking (and i know this is personal ways of dealing with things) if i said to a customer twice i would expect them to understand it wasn't going to happen - a third time would be considered cheek on their part and no one in retail is paid to put up with cheek!

You make me laugh.........

Loanranger wrote: »

May I suggest that we all leave this thread well alone from now on?

Muffinmaker hasn't listened and is never likely to listen.

Why feed her any more?

Muffinmaker probably hasn't listened because she expected people on this forum to be helpful. She has now found out the place is littered with bullies.

You should all be ashamed

shaun_from_Africa

Muffinmaker probably hasn't listened because she expected people on this forum to be helpful

No, she expected people to tell her what she wanted to hear and not what she was legally entitled to.
How can it possibly be helpful to anyone to give them misleading information simply to try to make them happy?
The facts are shown below (and feel free to correct any of these if you consider them to be wrong).

1/. Muffinmaker could not supply a valid receipt for the goods they were returning.

2/ Muffinmaker had removed the tags from the item that they were trying to return.

3/ The shop managed offered to check their sales records to confirm the 1st exchange but Muffinmaker was unable to advise the manager of the day this occurred so it could not be done easily.

4/ Muffinmaker was not legally entitled to a refund. Yes this was a service offered by the shop, but there were certain requirements that a customer needed to receive this, but Muffinmaker could not fulfill these requirements.

somethingcorporate

Zandoni wrote: »

Ridiculous statement, they can easily be replaced by the shop staff.



You make me laugh.........





Muffinmaker probably hasn't listened because she expected people on this forum to be helpful. She has now found out the place is littered with bullies.

You should all be ashamed

Stop talking tosh Zandoni, still peddling your useless consumer wants rubbish I see.

The OPs "rights" have been repeated time and time again throughout this thread - since it doesn't tie up with your idealistic view point that the customer is always right you always want to play the victim despite the facts of the situation.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them bullies it just makes you ignorant and unwilling to change your viewpoint.

Zandoni

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No, she expected people to tell her what she wanted to hear and not what she was legally entitled to.
How can it possibly be helpful to anyone to give them misleading information simply to try to make them happy?
The facts are shown below (and feel free to correct any of these if you consider them to be wrong).

1/. Muffinmaker could not supply a valid receipt for the goods they were returning.

2/ Muffinmaker had removed the tags from the item that they were trying to return.

3/ The shop managed offered to check their sales records to confirm the 1st exchange but Muffinmaker was unable to advise the manager of the day this occurred so it could not be done easily.

4/ Muffinmaker was not legally entitled to a refund. Yes this was a service offered by the shop, but there were certain requirements that a customer needed to receive this, but Muffinmaker could not fulfill these requirements.

She had the original receipt

Removing tag is no biggie they can easily be re-fitted by the shop staff.

So she is entitled to a refund.

Zandoni

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Stop talking tosh Zandoni, still peddling your useless consumer wants rubbish I see.

The OPs "rights" have been repeated time and time again throughout this thread - since it doesn't tie up with your idealistic view point that the customer is always right you always want to play the victim despite the facts of the situation.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them bullies it just makes you ignorant.

To gang up and insult someone is bullying.

The customer in this case is right.

somethingcorporate

Zandoni wrote: »

To gang up and insult someone is bullying.

The customer in this case is right.

Can you demonstrate where people have been insulting?

Again just because the OP doesn't hear what they want to and expect to doesn't make it ganging up or bullying.

Just because you (Or I) say someone is right does not make it so. The general consensus on the board is that the customer here is in the wrong (not that it makes them in the wrong).

shaun_from_Africa

She had the original receipt

And who stated that she didn't?
What I said was:

1/. Muffinmaker could not supply a valid receipt for the goods they were returning.

She had a receipt for goods that she no longer had as these had already been returned to the store and had been crossed out on the original.
I will state it again, she did not have a valid receipt for the goods she was trying to return.

She had no proof whatsoever that the goods in question had been legitimately obtained, and was even unable to remember which day they were obtained.

Do you think that all shops should be required to give a refund simply because someone states that they purchased the goods there without being able to provide one piece of proof to back this up?

shaun_from_Africa

So she is entitled to a refund.

You can post this as many times as you like, but it is still totally wrong.
She was entitled to a change of mind refund provided she abided by the requirements of the retailer concerned.
She was unable to do this, therefore she was not entitled to a refund. (unless of course to can point to a legal ruling that shows this is not the case).

By constantly posting misleading information and attempting to tell people that they are correct when in fact that they are not, all you are doing is making more problems for others