No refund without your name and address

OlliesDad

bylromarha wrote: »

there is absolutely no reason for them to know my personal details.

As has already been listed above, there are several reasons why they would want to know your details.

As already mentioned, the first step of taking court action would be a LBA.. this would have to include your name and address anyway.

hollydays

bylromarha wrote: »

No, it's a matter of noseyness and data collection on the part of the retailer.

I don't like standing in the middle of a shop and having to give my name and address. It makes me uncomfortable and it's unreasonable of them to expect it. And when I have the proof of purchase in my hand, the card I paid with ready for the machine (with my name on it if the company really want it) there is absolutely no reason for them to know my personal details.

I ask to write it down rather than say it aloud if it bothers me.

bylromarha

Been in touch with milletts. Apparently they take details for auditing. And store was wrong to say I wouldnt be allowed a refund on a faulty product had I refused to give name/address.

Guy in store was adamant, no address no refund. Feels like this one guy will get a memo and rest of country still going to misinform customers. Sounding paranoid I know...

Mojisola

bylromarha wrote: »

And store was wrong to say I wouldnt be allowed a refund on a faulty product had I refused to give name/address.

Guy in store was adamant, no address no refund. Feels like this one guy will get a memo and rest of country still going to misinform customers.

That might be what he was told to say. Just because the office guy backed down doesn't mean they don't tell their staff to insist on names and addresses.

bylromarha

Mojisola wrote: »

That might be what he was told to say. Just because the office guy backed down doesn't mean they don't tell their staff to insist on names and addresses.

Which is why I think I'm paranoid as I had that thought too.

iammumtoone

Mojisola wrote: »

That might be what he was told to say. Just because the office guy backed down doesn't mean they don't tell their staff to insist on names and addresses.

So lets say the next person who wants a refund from Millets is told they must give their name and reply "thats not what your head office say". What is the shop assistant suppose to do, take the customers word for it? meaning he might get into trouble as for all he knows customer is lying, or keep insisting for information meaning customer gets really upset as he is telling the truth.

Its really not good business practice and unfair on shop staff if they are told to do one thing but head office will tell anything to a customer just to keep them happy.

hollydays

iammumtoone wrote: »

So lets say the next person who wants a refund from Millets is told they must give their name and reply "thats not what your head office say". What is the shop assistant suppose to do, take the customers word for it? meaning he might get into trouble as for all he knows customer is lying, or keep insisting for information meaning customer gets really upset as he is telling the truth.

Its really not good business practice and unfair on shop staff if they are told to do one thing but head office will tell anything to a customer just to keep them happy.

Er..He could check with his head office?

shaun_from_Africa

hollydays wrote: »

Er..He could check with his head office?

I wouldn't be surprised if the head office is only manned Monday to Friday 9-5 (or similar hours) and as the stores are open far in excess of these times, calling head office might not be an option in many cases.

hollydays

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if the head office is only manned Monday to Friday 9-5 (or similar hours) and as the stores are open far in excess of these times, calling head office might not be an option in many cases.

Then consult the store manager seems like the obvious first step as the op has now been told the assistant was wrongly informed. Presumably the store manager would be a little better informed if we're talking hyperthetically.

iammumtoone

hollydays wrote: »

Then consult the store manager seems like the obvious first step as the op has now been told the assistant was wrongly informed. Presumably the store manager would be a little better informed if we're talking hyperthetically.

I don't work in retail but my understanding would be it , its the store manager that informs his/her staff of procedures in the first place. Are we to assume in this instance the store manager has deliberately trained the staff incorrectly in order to get more addresses out of customers. What would be the point of that? Would there be a target to meet on the number of addresses obtained for returns purposes?