Bad customer service or just bad customers.

Jo_F

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I must admit, I don't understand this at all. I have a card on my husband's account. Both cards have the same PIN. If we're out and I haven't got my card, my husband gives me his and vice versa. There is no problem spending using his card as I know the PIN.

But then I want to take the item back and suddenly its noticed that the name on the card is a man's. So they won't do it without my husband there. I don't see who is being protected by refusing to do the refund especially as the card details match the purchase (as both cards are on the same account, this is not fraud).

Most companies just get you to put the card in the machine and the credit goes back on, but a handful make you sign. I can't understand why these companies want you to sign. What is the purpose of this or is it just a legacy from the previous system where you had to sign for both purchases and refunds?

Continuing with the answer that ChrissyG gave, (as I work for the same company), as stated we do not see the cards when the sale is being processed but we have to check its the same card to put the refund onto (last 4 digits), and yes there needs to be a signature and the PDQ machine actually asks if the signature matches before we can proceed, but..... if you read the T&Cs of your bank, revealing your PIN and giving your card to someone else to use is against them, so really you shouldn't be using any card but your own to shop with, as using someone else's is fraud.

This is why I prefer the old swipe and sign, as a cashire I handled the card, could check it matched the sex of the customer, and could give it a once over to check it was a proper card (checking for signs of tampering/counterfeiting etc), plus actually seeing the customer sign, all safeguards that are just not in place with C&P.

Powered_By_Pies

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I must admit, I don't understand this at all. I have a card on my husband's account. Both cards have the same PIN. If we're out and I haven't got my card, my husband gives me his and vice versa. There is no problem spending using his card as I know the PIN.

But then I want to take the item back and suddenly its noticed that the name on the card is a man's. So they won't do it without my husband there. I don't see who is being protected by refusing to do the refund especially as the card details match the purchase (as both cards are on the same account, this is not fraud).

Most companies just get you to put the card in the machine and the credit goes back on, but a handful make you sign. I can't understand why these companies want you to sign. What is the purpose of this or is it just a legacy from the previous system where you had to sign for both purchases and refunds?

It's an anti-fraud thing. It might be irritating when you've done nothing wrong but when it actually happens and kicks in, you'd be thankful for the retailer to flag it up with the merchant banking fraud team.

It's not a retailer's way of being annoying or awkward, it's a safety system put in place to make sure the refund isn't put onto a dodgy card.

System

Jo_F wrote: »

Continuing with the answer that ChrissyG gave, (as I work for the same company), as stated we do not see the cards when the sale is being processed but we have to check its the same card to put the refund onto (last 4 digits), and yes there needs to be a signature and the PDQ machine actually asks if the signature matches before we can proceed, but..... if you read the T&Cs of your bank, revealing your PIN and giving your card to someone else to use is against them, so really you shouldn't be using any card but your own to shop with, as using someone else's is fraud.

This is why I prefer the old swipe and sign, as a cashire I handled the card, could check it matched the sex of the customer, and could give it a once over to check it was a proper card (checking for signs of tampering/counterfeiting etc), plus actually seeing the customer sign, all safeguards that are just not in place with C&P.

:wave::wave::wave::wave:Hi :hello::hello::hello::hello:

Littlestars_2

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I tried to return a faulty pushchair once. I didn't have the receipt though I did have the credit card slip which proved I'd spent £220 in the store 3 weeks before. I didn't want a refund, I just wanted an exchange as I'd had it 3 weeks and one of the wheels had fallen off.

Anyway, the staff member said the same as you - that I couldn't prove I'd purchased the pushchair from there so they couldn't do anything. So I asked her if she was saying that I had stolen it. I then pointed to the pushchair on the display where a large sign said "New design, exclusive to xxxx" (where xxxx was the store name).

I was very polite throughout the process but I think the staff member thought this meant I could be walked over. It was only when I became angry (when she implied I must have stolen it) that the manager came over. I explained that it was embarrassing in a busy store that it had been implied I was a thief. At this point I was given a full refund in cash (I only wanted an exchange). I never shopped at this brand of store again despite having 2 more children. Prior to this I had been spending around £200 a month there.

So I don't agree that being polite always works. Sometimes they think you will be a pushover.

With the customer I had it was a ted baker item so many places sell it and she was given it as a gift and was refusing to ask the person that bought it to see if they had anything to prove it. They where also advised to go to thier local store too see if they could help but would be up to thier discretion if they would be able to do anything. I cant comment on your situation as I cant sy what your attitude or the customers was but being polite will always get you more and iver never thought of customer being pushovers but if people are screaming at me im not going to go out of my way to help them.

DevilsAdvocate1

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

It's an anti-fraud thing. It might be irritating when you've done nothing wrong but when it actually happens and kicks in, you'd be thankful for the retailer to flag it up with the merchant banking fraud team.

It's not a retailer's way of being annoying or awkward, it's a safety system put in place to make sure the refund isn't put onto a dodgy card.

But the card numbers are identical - so it still matches the receipt. Even the 3 digit code on the back of the cards are the same. And I can't understand why anyone would put a refund on someone elses card, yet I can understand why they would buy something on a card that isn't their's. I would imagine there is more chance of winning the lottery than finding a random receipt where the last 4 digits match the last 4 digits of my card.

This is why I can't see who is being protected by requesting a signature for returns. If a pin is secure for purchases then why is a pin not secure for refunds?

System

i asked someone if he wanted a bag the other day, and he started effing and blinding at me (and other customers) saying "she just called me an old bag"

You really can't win with some people, in some ways there are people who are rude and annoy me, but there are also people who i love to interact with and have a chat with.

My main annoyances are people talking on the phone as you serve them (just tll them you will be a minute!) and people who literally throw their money on the counter that i then have to pick up (i guarantee if i threw their change in the counter they wouldn't be happy!)

Jo_F

CHRISSYG wrote: »

:wave::wave::wave::wave:Hi :hello::hello::hello::hello:

Hiya :beer: feeling the stress yet :rotfl:

System

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

But the card numbers are identical - so it still matches the receipt. Even the 3 digit code on the back of the cards are the same. And I can't understand why anyone would put a refund on someone elses card, yet I can understand why they would buy something on a card that isn't their's. I would imagine there is more chance of winning the lottery than finding a random receipt where the last 4 digits match the last 4 digits of my card.

This is why I can't see who is being protected by requesting a signature for returns. If a pin is secure for purchases then why is a pin not secure for refunds?

The card numbers aren't the same at all .The account info if its on there will obviously be the same but the "long" number certainly isn't.

System

Jo_F wrote: »

Hiya :beer: feeling the stress yet :rotfl:

found the perfect stress antidote :coffee::coffee::coffee: and plenty of it !

geerex

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I can't understand why anyone would put a refund on someone elses card, yet I can understand why they would buy something on a card that isn't their's.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just very trusting, and not totally naive.

It's an anti fraud measure. Here's how it works:
Suppose you're skint and need cash fast. The only option you have is withdrawing from a credit card, but it's expensive and could affect your credit rating. Why not buy something in a shop with said credit card, then refund that transaction onto your debit/atm card? You'll still owe the credit card company the money, but it won't be a cash advance and in the meantime you'll have some available funds on your debit card. .. Not a heinous crime by any means, but certainly against both the cc company and merchant terms.

Next up, we have the stolen/cloned/cardholder not present transactions. These are all variations on a theme, but the guts are the same. Criminal "buys" goods on a stolen/cloned card, luckily for him, it's not been reported so the card hasn't been stopped. The sophisticated types may know the PIN (maybe through an atm hidden camera etc), or may convince the retailer to put the transaction through with a signature. A couple of days later, criminal (or accomplice) goes back in to store and has refund put on another card which they can use to withdraw cash.

There are many other permutations of this sort of thing, without the merchant banks insistence, it would be incredibly easy for criminals to commit fraud or launder money.

(Above explanation is by no means exhaustive).

Whilst it may not make sense to you, this is why retailers insist on refunding to not only the same person named on the card, but the same card NUMBER (not sort code/account but long number across middle). Both these criteria must be satisfied to comply with their merchant terms.