Charged Twice for 1 Item

Calico26

I went into The Range yesterday and bought 4 items. Just today I noticed I have been charged for 5 items. I was charged twice for one item. It was £6.99. I phoned them and they told me to go back and they will check the CCTV to make sure I'm telling the truth. The thing is, I don't drive, I walked to the shop which took me around 40 minutes then got a taxi home. The taxi cost £6. If I have the receipt with all the details on it and they can check their CCTV then why do I have to be inconvenienced and visit the shop again and either walk there and back which will not cost anything. (I'm 65). Or get another taxi which will use up the money they will refund me! I paid by card so I can't see why they can't refund the money that way as this was not my fault.

user1977

And have you explained all this to them?

Sandtree

Its mainly so that if they say they've looked at the CCTV and it appears to show 5 items that you can see it for yourself and discuss rather than you then levelling accusations that they clearly haven't looked at it. Secondly timestamps on different systems may not be identical and generally people can spot themselves in videos much easier than someone trying to spot the customer buying 2 glasses, a jug and a pan (or whatever)

Ultimately explain the fact it would cost you £6 to attempt to recover the £6.99 and see what they say. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

To play Devil's advocate: if The Range have no idea what the OP looks like, how are they supposed to check their CCTV to see where he was and what he bought?  The receipt will have the transaction time on, but if the CCTV system isn't synchronised to the second the task will be nigh on impossible without the OP being there to pick himself out.  It's also hardly reasonable to expect a refund on the basis of telephoning and claiming that an item the system states was bought was not actually received.  

It's more than possible there was a double scan but, being pragmatic, the cost of pursuing a refund as a matter of principle is likely to exceed the value of the allegedly erroneous charge.  It's an opportunity to ask 'how much is my time worth?', which is a useful maxim of my father's.  

RogerBareford

Calico26 said:

I went into The Range yesterday and bought 4 items. Just today I noticed I have been charged for 5 items. I was charged twice for one item. It was £6.99. I phoned them and they told me to go back and they will check the CCTV to make sure I'm telling the truth. The thing is, I don't drive, I walked to the shop which took me around 40 minutes then got a taxi home. The taxi cost £6. If I have the receipt with all the details on it and they can check their CCTV then why do I have to be inconvenienced and visit the shop again and either walk there and back which will not cost anything. (I'm 65). Or get another taxi which will use up the money they will refund me! I paid by card so I can't see why they can't refund the money that way as this was not my fault.

If it's so difficult to travel there and back then why didn't you alteast look at the receipt before you left to make sure it was correct which wouldn't have taken long at all if you only bought 4 items.

Also a good thing to do that i always do it keep a running total of how much things cost in your head as you pick them up. Even rounding to the nearest £1 for each item would have alerted you to a discrepancy which could have been corrected before you even left the till.

molerat

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

To play Devil's advocate: if The Range have no idea what the OP looks like, how are they supposed to check their CCTV to see where he was and what he bought?  The receipt will have the transaction time on, but if the CCTV system isn't synchronised to the second the task will be nigh on impossible without the OP being there to pick himself out.  It's also hardly reasonable to expect a refund on the basis of telephoning and claiming that an item the system states was bought was not actually received.  

It's more than possible there was a double scan but, being pragmatic, the cost of pursuing a refund as a matter of principle is likely to exceed the value of the allegedly erroneous charge.  It's an opportunity to ask 'how much is my time worth?', which is a useful maxim of my father's.  

If they have CCTV that can show that level of detail it will be linked to a master clock as it will be the overhead security system for the tills.

Bradden

molerat said:

If they have CCTV that can show that level of detail it will be linked to a master clock as it will be the overhead security system for the tills.

I love these factual posts basen on assumptions. I have a CCTV system at work.. it shows the tills in great detail... but it's not sycronised to the clocks on the till system at all.

Ergates

RogerBareford said:

Calico26 said:

I went into The Range yesterday and bought 4 items. Just today I noticed I have been charged for 5 items. I was charged twice for one item. It was £6.99. I phoned them and they told me to go back and they will check the CCTV to make sure I'm telling the truth. The thing is, I don't drive, I walked to the shop which took me around 40 minutes then got a taxi home. The taxi cost £6. If I have the receipt with all the details on it and they can check their CCTV then why do I have to be inconvenienced and visit the shop again and either walk there and back which will not cost anything. (I'm 65). Or get another taxi which will use up the money they will refund me! I paid by card so I can't see why they can't refund the money that way as this was not my fault.

If it's so difficult to travel there and back then why didn't you alteast look at the receipt before you left to make sure it was correct which wouldn't have taken long at all if you only bought 4 items.

Because most of us just assume that other people are doing their job properly and can be trusted not to muck it up.

Thrugelmir

I know many people of 65 and over who enjoy walking. 

ThumbRemote

Thrugelmir said:

I know many people of 65 and over who enjoy walking. 

So? I know many people who like dancing. That's got as much relevance to the OP as your comment. 

Thrugelmir

ThumbRemote said:

Thrugelmir said:

I know many people of 65 and over who enjoy walking. 

So? I know many people who like dancing. That's got as much relevance to the OP as your comment. 

Not justification for not returning to the store perhaps. We could all dream up an endless list of excuses for a reason not to do something.