The Great ‘Store Returns Policy’ Hunt. Who, what, where and when?

thelurch

redsquirrelsuk wrote: »

I've recently been the recipient of money from Tesco on two occasions. On checking my receipt I discovered in the first case that I had been charged full price for a buy 2 for £6.00 on vitamins. I took my receipt back to the store and was given a full cash refund plus both packs of vitamins free!

On the second occasion I discovered I had been charged twice for a box of Bran Flakes, I went back and the same thing happened, I got the Bran Flakes plus my money back.

Both times I received cash even though I had paid with my debit card.

I knew about this some years ago but thought they had stopped doing it as they keep it very quiet.

I have been told by someone who worked for Tesco that if you ask nicely they will do this, if you are nasty to them they only give you the difference in the price.

They have stopped giving you a refund and you keep the item, its now double the difference. If they double scan an item then they should revert to the old refund policy though.

hollydays

murphaph wrote: »

It would indeed concern a retailer. To repeat what jada said: You buy an item for a fiver on eBay and bring it to a bricks and mortar retailer for a refund for £30. You believe the retailer can't lose as they can sell the item on for £30. This assumption is wrong because a) it costs the retailer money to actually process your refund so they lose money immediately and b) the retailer pays only £15 (for example) to their supplier for your £30 item, so if the retailer reduces the item the day after you bring it back and it goes back on the shelf to say, £20, then assuming it sells they will lose a further £10 as they didn't buy the item from their regular supplier for £15, they bought it from you for full retail at £30!!

It's more complicated from our side and as a store manager I assure you inventory loss is one of the primary metrics used in our appraisals...and hence salary! We must assess the effect of a policy or use of discretion on our potential loss and act accordingly. Refunds given to customers who bought an item which has since been reduced are a major cause of inventory loss.

Lidl Ireland (and I presume UK) has a very open ended refunds policy. If you change your mind and bring back any item with a receipt you are guaranteed a full refund within 28 days (except on certain TARGA electronics-LCD TVs and Laptops, only a handful of times a year you'll see these products in store) however if you bring back said item at any time the store manager is generally going to give you a full refund. If the item is faulty you will of course get a full refund after the 28 days regardless. Lidl encourages store managers to use discretion as much as possible as a discount retailer customers must know they can bring items back without hassle. This is done to build customer confidence. If a discount retailer had a very restrictive policy then customers would believe the stock was cheaper because it was rubbish.

Lidl Ireland will give exchange or refunds on perishable items even if the customer has disposed of the offending bit of stinky cheese or whatever! Lidl also has a policy that if you bring back a yogurt (or any item <€5) from another retailer (especially Aldi) they will politely explain the product is not their's bit will give the customer a free sample of the Lidl version. Again, to build customer confidence. This happens very often actually. I had Tesco bread brought in to me last week!

Read what I actually said. The argument was that Jada was saying her store would NOT accept a bank statement as proof,.Yet would accept NO receipt and give vouchers.)

Would you as a Manager do that....? NO,I think not. Your argument is putting the case for NOT accepting refunds (thats not very MSE).As for me saying there would be no loss to the retailer,your argument forgets that whether the person has a receipt or not,your store will still have to process the refund-If stores accept the refund without a receipt, there will be no more "loss" if they accept the refund with proof by bank statement .If it gets reduced that is nothing to do with this argument-well actually it proves my previous point even more-a bank statement would allow the retailer to see when the item was purchased-NO receipt would not.

Customers not being given refunds (rightfully) are not what MSE are about.
I admit I should have said "the losses are the same",(but minimal).By your statement it seems your motivation behind accepting an item for a refund would be driven,not by if the customer should have one-but more by whether you might lose out by giving ANY refund-tut tut.A company that refuses a rightful refund (ok they dont have a receipt so legally the store doesnt have to refund by law generally) because they are concerned about loss to themselves,and a company who gave me a refund when I produced a single item shown on a bank statement as proof and refunded me because it was OBVIOUS- well ,the customer service levels ,and staff and Management training levels between the two companies speaks volumes.If you are new to Lidl,you should google stuff about them German Trade Unions and the "Black Book on Lidl in Europe",Lidl violating workers rights throughout europe.

murphaph

I'm not new to them. They are a tough employer-no question about it, but they (along with Aldi) pay better than any other retailer, by a long way. Swings and roundabouts as they say-lots of people have more stressful jobs than me and get paid a lot less. I could return to my old job (IBM engineer) for half the money and most of the stress.

I did read what you said. You said (though you didn't realise it at the time) that a retailer would suffer no loss if they bought stock from a member of the public for full retail price. That is simply impossible. Retail is based on buying for less and selling for more.

Your points vis a vis the motives for a generous refund policy are from a customer perspective and that's fair enough. My employer does have a generous refund policy and in principle almost any item can be returned at any time and a refund given at manager's discretion. Let me give you an example why the manager must sometimes refuse: Last week my district suffered losses of almost €1000 due to an individual who entered one store 5 times at 8am and bought the same item (€199.99) each time. The cashier was puzzled but nothing illegal so made the sales. The individual then went into the store for a refund claiming he had dropped all his receipts in the carpark and the wind had taken them away. Refund given by SM as he had just made the sales and had no reason not to (generous refund policy in play, no legal onus to accept non-faulty goods back at all) believe the 'customer'. The individual then proceeds on a day trip around the district, entering stores and picking up the same item from the shopfloor and proceeding to checkout for 'refunds'. Individual presents the receipt he obtained at the first store so all looks above board to the other stores and 'refund' is given (the actual offfence here is "obtaining monies by deception" and is more serious than shoplifting which is "theft").

Look at it from our perspective-sometimes you might find yourself trying to obtain a refund legitimately just after a scammer has done this to the store. the SM will be in a particular frame of mind and will use less discretion having just been 'stung'. It's human nature, especially when the individual who pulled the scam looked 'respectable'. Ordinary customers sadly will get caught from time to time as retailers focus on inventory loss.

The moral of the story is simply KEEP YOUR RECEIPT and be polite and courteous to your store employees and you will have a much better chance of getting a refund beyond what's required by law.

Have a nice day :A

hollydays

The first part of your post is fair-the rest..well
Any retailer whos staff are so dumb,as not to realise someone bringing five high-value items back for a cash refund with no receipt,it having "blown away" in the carpark and wanting a cash refund-and not having been trained to query this with a manager-deserves all they get.That is the EXACT circumstance he she should have exercised Common sense first and the Manager should have been called (hopefully they would have suspicious experience to smell a rat) and allowed to exercise "discretion" -usually called saying "no". Most savvy companies SHOULD have an internal system to allow them to circulate this highly suspicious behaviour around all their stores., or at the least phone a few nearby stores often pays dividends.he cashier was puzzled-well I am puzzled as to why they didn't spot this very obvious scam.Everyone in retail should know electrical items are high risk for theft as they are high value.,as are spirits as it is high risk for being stolen.
Once it had been identified this had happened-CCTV could hopefully be used to obtain photos of the suspect and the thefts reported.What stopped the cashier giving out gift vouchers here...

murphaph

hollydays wrote: »

Read what I actually said. The argument was that Jada was saying her store would NOT accept a bank statement as proof,.Yet would accept NO receipt and give vouchers.)

Would you as a Manager do that....? NO,I think not. Your argument is putting the case for NOT accepting refunds (thats not very MSE).As for me saying there would be no loss to the retailer,your argument forgets that whether the person has a receipt or not,your store will still have to process the refund-If stores accept the refund without a receipt, there will be no more "loss" if they accept the refund with proof by bank statement

Just to further highlight an issue here. Giving vouchers costs the retailer less than cash refunds overall because you could spend the cash in another retailer. You are limited to spendng the vouchers with the refunding retailer who buys the goods at cost, not at retail prices. So your 30 quid voucher goes straight back to the retailer on an item he paid 15 quid for, he makes 15 quid whereas if you leave the store he is out 15 quid (assuming he can sell the returned item).

And to reiterate befor you launch an attack on Lidl again, Lidl does not issue vouchers (except from head office when a customer makes a valid complaint and Lidl wishes to make a gesture of goodwill) and if refunds are given they will always be cash. Lidl does not refund back to debit card. You will find that Lidl and Aldi have some of the most generous refund policies out there. They have to do this to earn customer trust.

I feel I must answer your points on the mistreatment of workers. I totally accept that Lidl has a bad reputation and not without foundation, however I know from personal experience that the working time directives MUST be met. Lidl audits all employee timesheets every week and managers are questioned (and disciplined in rare instances) if employees don't get their minimum breaks/mimimum rest days/minimum 11 hours rest period between shifts and so on. Employees clock in and out themselves so the system prevents manipulation by supervisors/managers-an employees cloced times cannot be edited/voided by anyone. The employee then sees the prevous week's timesheet on monday morning to ensure the system recorded their hours properly. These are relatively recent introductions (last 2 years) to the company to try to combat the negative publicity and I would say cashiers and store and warehouse staff are as well treated as any retailer nowadays.

hollydays

They are not MY points on the mistreatment of workers murphaph..they are well documented everywhere by unions..(which is no doubt negative publicity). I take your point about gift vouchers then-they should just have said NO.Why do you think these thieves targeted your company rather than another-I would suggest its likely its PRECISELY because they knew you didnt give gift vouchers .The company has saved money not having to give gift vouchers in one way,but lost out because of it.That sometimes is the effect of cost cutting.Thieves will always spot loopholes.Most retailers would also use "spider" security tags. Your company economised on this too.(These are tags like tie-wraps that go around the box in both directions-If taken to a till the staff would have notced they hadnt been removed-also someone may have noticed if they had tried to cut them off on the shopfloor.

murphaph

hollydays wrote: »

THey are not MY points on the mistreatment of workers murphaph..they are well documented everywhere by unions..(which is no doubt negative publicity).

Unions automatically dislike any company that won't recognise them. As I said: Lidl has been a bad employer in the past. These days the focus is most definitely on maintaining compliance with the EU working time directives. This is coming from Germany, so I presume the company wants to improve its image across the continent.

hollydays wrote: »

Take your point about gift vouchers then-they should just have said NO.Why do you think these thieves targeted your company rather than another

Thieves target all retailers to a greater or lesser extent. Inventory loss at Lidl/Aldi etc. is typically under 1%-much lower than most retailers.

hollydays wrote: »

I would suggest its likely its PRECISELY because they knew you didnt give gift vouchers >the company has saved money not having to give gift vouchers in one way,but lost out because of it.That sometimes is the effect of cost cutting.Thieves will always spot loopholes.

See above-Lidl loses less money than other retailers. I fail to see how giving gift vouchers would have avoided loss in the situation I outlined above. Lidl saves money by not issuing vouchers (except by way of apology for something) which must be processed independently of cash/EFT. The store would still have lost out if it had offered vouchers for the above incident, though to a lesser extent.

May I ask, do you shop at Lidl or Aldi?

hollydays

Lidl will be seen as an easy target because of the gift vouchers.Lidl have saved money.We all love the cheapness of Lidl and Aldi-of course this cheapness is acheived by cutting costs-but by doing this they may increase loss-as you demonstrated-but had the member of staff refused the refund their would have been no loss at that point.

I am not interested in getting into either slagging off a particular company,or buying into any companies brainwashing of their staff. I dont care that much.

I am simply making the point-dont complain about losses when you are not using tried and tested methods for eliminating them,as highlighted in my posts above (but not answered by you). I know you don't like what I have highlighted,but sorry,They are facts.

murphaph

hollydays wrote: »

Lidl will be seen as an easy target because of the gift vouchers.Lidl have saved money.We all love the cheapness of Lidl and Aldi-of course this cheapness is acheived by cutting costs-but by doing this they may increase loss-as you demonstrated-but had the member of staff refused the refund their would have been no loss at that point.

I am not interested in getting into either slagging off a particular company,or buying into any companies brainwashing of their staff. I dont care that much.

I am simply making the point-dont complain about losses when you are not using tried and tested methods for eliminating them,as highlighted in my posts above (but not answered by you). I know you don't like what I have highlighted,but sorry,They are facts.

Dieter Schwarz and Karl and Theo Albrecht are amongst the richest men in the world. The Albrechts' combined wealth is reported as being greater than Bill Gates'. Do you think they became so wealthy by losing money as easily as you suggest?

I still maintain that you will have less touble with refunds at Lidl and Aldi than most if not all other retailers. That's why I asked have you shopped there. I'm curious have you ever needed to access the refund policy of either company.

And once again, the inventory losses at Lidl and Aldi are amongst the lowest in retail. This enables said companies to pass on these savings to customers. Lidl and Aldi are cheap for various reasons. You call them 'cost cutting' and some are but most savings are attibuted to their highly standardised store layouts (so we know exactly how much it costs to build one!), limited assortment of popular items and so on.

Richard019

Something does need to be looked at with the Lidl example given. There's no way that should have been possible but the blame isn't necessarily with the store staff, it's more the training.

I work for Aldi myself and it's not uncommon for people to come in for several high value items on their launch day (particularly midweek) and to want seperate receipts because they've been sent for family members who are working. I'm assuming this was the circumstance there.

It's the immediate refund for them that would get me (training) alerted. One, maybe two I'd be comfortable with if they had someone ring them up on their mobile to 'cancel their order', but all five for a change of mind should have been picked up on.

As I say, I would pick up on it but that's because I'm used to dealing with the dodgy elements from my previous job. Where I am now is a far more respectable area and the saying ignorance is bliss has never been more applicable. Just purely due to lack of exposure to it the amount of customers that are shocked that shoplifters even exist is frightening. Now the staff obviously know better than that but have come from these same families so don't have the experiance to recognise it.

The failure in the example is that the staff don't seem to have been told what to look out for beyond someone shoving a chicken up their jumper. That is what the thief has recognised, nothing to do with the lack of gift vouchers.

All that said, as has already been said the inventry losses are far lower in Aldi/Lidl than in almost any other retailer. I don't know what Lidl count as inventory loss, but we count theft and wastage (ie reductions/out of dates and breakages). The percentage we actually produce for them combined is less than 1/2 of what the target was at my previous employer for theft alone, and less than 1/5 of the target for wastage alone. Note in the old retailer I gave the targets, around half the stores will miss those targets as it's the company target I've used not a store specific one. (They actually used the same figure for all stores which seems really hard on the quiet shops in rough areas where waste is harder to control and the loss of a bottle of Vodka has a bigger effect).