River Island refusing to refund even with a receipt!

Zandoni

kwaks wrote: »

She was given the correct advice on the facts she supplied. Then as she did not like it she got stroppy, leading eventually to bigotry.

There was no bullying, there was peoples indignation and exasperation at her comments and failure to accept facts.

Though I do think you two might get on........kinda similar in some respects

The way a lot of people give their advice on this forum does wind people up when they come here, they feel like they are being bullied.

She insists she wasn't given another receipt, people here didn't accept that and she probably felt like they were calling her a liar.

I don't think I'll even respond to your last paragraph.

kwaks

Muffinmaker wrote: »

I didn't get a new receipt as far as I know because they normally staple the new receipt to the old one

Can't see how you see that as her insisting she didn't get another receipt

shaun_from_Africa

She insists she wasn't given another receipt,

You can post this as often as you wish but it is still wrong.
At no point has Muffinmaker insisted that she was definately not given a new receipt, but why let facts ruin your argument?

I didn't get a new receipt as far as I know

"as far as I know" means that she isn't sure. She forgot which day she made the exchange, so don't you agree that there is also a possibility that she forgot being given the receipt?

If Muffinmaker was never given a second receipt why did she state

It never occurred to me that I would need both receipts as proof of purchase

Both receipts? I thought she only ever had one receipt

Zandoni

You are all trying to analyse every single word that is said, people often finish a sentence with "as far as I know"

I have taken goods back many times in my life and very often there's confusion from the shop staff over what receipt/document goes where.

It never occurred to me that I would need both receipts as proof of purchase

If she meant that in the context you are saying and she did have a second receipt she would have used it.

shaun_from_Africa

If she meant that in the context you are saying and she did have a second receipt she would have used it.

Why would she have used it? She openly admitted that it didn't occur to her that she would need both receipts.

You are all trying to analyse every single word that is said

Nope, simply quoting word for word what someone stated. No analysis is required.
She didn't say that the didn't have 2 receipts, she clearly stated that she didn't think she would need both receipts.
Why "both" receipts? Why even mention this if at no point she had two receipts.
I think everyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the English language understands what "both" means and when it should or shouldn't be used in a sentence.

I think she was given a second receipt, lost it, then tried to get a refund using the original receipt.

Zandoni

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why would she have used it? She openly admitted that it didn't occur to her that she would need both receipts.

Again you are reading her words too literally, it's obvious that if she had a second receipt she would have used it.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I think she was given a second receipt, lost it, then tried to get a refund using the original receipt.

That's just speculation and you are assuming the OP is lying. If she had lost the second receipt she wouldn't have gone to all this bother.

I also don't see the point in speculating, we should help out on the information given. A lot of people here act like they are in a law court and it's their job to find the guilty party.

Why does everyone feel the need to change my mind especially as RI HO is giving the OP her money back.

Hintza

Zandoni wrote: »

Why does everyone feel the need to change my mind especially as RI HO is giving the OP her money back.

Exemplum de simia, quae, quando plus ascendit, plus apparent posteriora eius

Give it a rest and get off your high horse.

kwaks

Zandoni wrote: »

Again you are reading her words too literally, it's obvious that if she had a second receipt she would have used it.



That's just speculation and you are assuming the OP is lying. If she had lost the second receipt she wouldn't have gone to all this bother.

I also don't see the point in speculating, we should help out on the information given. A lot of people here act like they are in a law court and it's their job to find the guilty party.

Why does everyone feel the need to change my mind especially as RI HO is giving the OP her money back.

That is pure speculation:rotfl:

dmg24

I'm thinking Zandoni is beginning to know how the Chilean miners felt in that big old hole - I wonder if he'll still be digging in two months time!

Bloomin_Freezing2

Zandoni wrote: »

You seem strange, you boast that you have two lovely daughters and you want to help people by spreading the word of being a blood donor.

But you join a gang that picks on people with different views to yourself. If you don't agree with me why try to insult me with the :rotfl:

Where in my last post did I name you?? I did not, it was a general ':rotfl:' at this thread continuing when the OP had given up long ago. You are making assumptions of me there, something which you yourself chastised others for doing (in your opinion). I am merely amused by the fact that the argument here continues.

I'm sure there are many of us here that like to our little bit to make the world a better place, and many have a sense of humour too. We all have an opinion which we are free to 'voice'.

I have not joined a gang on here to insult you, if there is a gang then i'm very upset that I have not had a personal invite from the leader! Do they not want me in their gang?? I hope it's not Garys Gang!!!

It's a big wide world out there, with much more important things going on. Can't everyone just agree to disagree and have a group :grouphug:?