Tesco misprice discussion area part 12

ben500

Monster_Deals wrote:

Thanks for that, it now makes sense to me if you treat the 2 transactions as separate.

The return and refund are not connected to the original R&R, the R&R being where Tesco's suffered their loss (by their choice).

Therefore to make hard cash from R&R activities, you don't need to sell the goods to a third party, you can return them for a refund.

Why do CS mark up you receipt with an R&R note then when they give you an R&R ? I thought this was to stop you returning goods and making money ?

This is to test your conscience!

Carefull your starting to think r&r now not scam!:beer:

Constantine

Monster_Deals wrote:

Why do CS mark up you receipt with an R&R note then when they give you an R&R ? I thought this was to stop you returning goods and making money ?

It is. Thats why they mark your reciept - to show it has been dealt with and so you can not go back for an other r & r. Want to then get a straight refund on it? Up to you and how much front you have. From my perspective, you are returning an item to me that has the same value as the refund I am going to give you, so no loss to me.

Note - not everyone may have the same attitude as I have!

Monster_Deals

ben500 wrote:

This is to test your conscience!

I always thought it was so they could say (perhaps quite rightly) 'how can we refund you money on something you have not paid for'.

Monster_Deals

Constantine wrote:

It is. Thats why they mark your reciept - to show it has been dealt with and so you can not go back for an other r & r. Want to then get a straight refund on it? Up to you and how much front you have. From my perspective, you are returning an item to me that has the same value as the refund I am going to give you, so no loss to me.

Note - not everyone may have the same attitude as I have!

I understand, but personally I could not do it.

It just does not seem right trying to claim money back for something I had spent no money on.

Never realised that people might try and claim a second R&R with the same receipt when they have already received one. I suppose that is where a criminals, criminal mind sets in.

Constantine

frequent wrote:

Constantine, I usualy respect and appreciate most of your posts, but a Tesco employee telling us we need to "work through our morals".

Sorry, but Tesco have morals akin to those of Scallamanger ( man with 3 nipples)..world domination at what ever price.

Read it again.

I did not say you should "work through our morals".

In the context of the post I was replying to and the previous posts made by that poster, there was nothing wrong with my statement.

If you respect and appreciate most of my posts, show me the one where I have ever made moral judgements against anyone here.

Tends to happen the other way in my experience...Tesco have the morals of a fictional character with 3 nipples, so I do too? Nice respect!

Monster_Deals

ben500 wrote:

This is to test your conscience!

Carefull your starting to think r&r now not scam!:beer:

I believe it to be a scam because of the deliberate premeditated nature of the activity.

Scams to me can be legal or illegal, a legal scam could be called 'sharp practice'.
Many people on this thread appear to consider that scam or scamming automatically means an illegal activity, that is not my use of the word or how it was used when I was at school or in discussions at work or with friends.

Constantine

wlfc1 wrote:

I would love to know which store you based at !, I accept that for obvious reasons you won't tell anyone, I do find it strange that some stores are always easy pickings, but I have two stores that I just can't crack.

The $64,000 question.

Its not Wales (which is just as well considering the number of Welsh posters on here!)

leadhead

Monster_Deals wrote:

Thanks for that, it now makes sense to me if you treat the 2 transactions as separate.

The return and refund are not connected to the original R&R, the R&R being where Tesco's suffered their loss (by their choice)

I'm sure I said that in my first reply...I certainly said it on the ethics thread where I requested it went.

Do I hear any type of apology.....

wlfc1

Constantine wrote:

The $64,000 question.

Its not Wales (which is just as well considering the number of Welsh posters on here!)

I would love to think that you are based at one of the the two stores that I can't seem to even sniff an r&r.

Although for some reason they seem to move managers after about six months (well that is certainly the case at my local store.

leadhead

Monster_Deals wrote:

I believe it to be a scam because of the deliberate premeditated nature of the activity.

Scams to me can be legal or illegal, a legal scam could be called 'sharp practice'.
Many people on this thread appear to consider that scam or scamming automatically means an illegal activity, that is not my use of the word or how it was used when I was at school or in discussions at work or with friends.

The dictionary definitition is fraudulent, swindle....If the dictionary says that....who are you to offer your own definition....It doesnt really matter what anyone thinks....its the true definition that matters..........

I would imagine it angers people that you insist on this, and even use it in your signature....because it is incorrect.....and we dont really want to know your total...

I can mention 10 names on here who have over £3000 each in the last 6 weeks....but they dont need to advertise the fact...

Edit.....make that 6 people....

I keep getting sucKered into these replies, even after lots of attempts to get this over to the ethics thread......I'll have to watch it, i feel I'm becoming the troll.