Sent cheaper item by mistake; Costco refuse to refund the difference, only full return

MalMonroe

Hi, is there any chance you can go back to them and ask to speak to a really very senior member of staff? The CEO in the UK, even?

Notwithstanding all the relevant rules and regulations and laws of consumerism we have, it seems absolutely crazy that they want you to return the cheaper (although obviously still enjoyable) product in a broken container when you would be really happy to hold onto what they have sent you and all you are asking in return is the price difference. Begs the question - what do they intend to do with your return? Drink it themselves?!

I just think if you could manage to speak to someone who has a tiny bit of nous, you may be able to come to an acceptable arrangement without all the faff. £35 is nothing to them. Whereas to me it's quite a princely sum. 

Sorry to say that your related experience really isn't helping to raise the profile of Costco to me - a massive international concern should be willing to be flexible where loyal customers are concerned. (Sainsbury's can do it! And they're not half as big.) 

I do hope you manage to sort things out to your satisfaction. In my own humble opinion, for what it's worth, they should be bending over backwards to help. They do not deserve your custom.

MattMattMattUK

MalMonroe said:

Hi, is there any chance you can go back to them and ask to speak to a really very senior member of staff? The CEO in the UK, even?

Do you genuinely think that the CEO of CostCo, or even "really very senior member of staff" will speak to someone who has a minor customer service complaint? 

MalMonroe said:

Notwithstanding all the relevant rules and regulations and laws of consumerism we have, it seems absolutely crazy that they want you to return the cheaper (although obviously still enjoyable) product in a broken container when you would be really happy to hold onto what they have sent you and all you are asking in return is the price difference. Begs the question - what do they intend to do with your return? Drink it themselves?!

What they intend to do with it is irrelevant, that is the system they have in place, likely adjusted for losses and carefully set out internally for goods where duty is applicable, as is generally done with alcohol sales. 

MalMonroe said:

I just think if you could manage to speak to someone who has a tiny bit of nous, you may be able to come to an acceptable arrangement without all the faff. £35 is nothing to them. Whereas to me it's quite a princely sum. 

The reality is that they are probably not bothered what happens, they have a system, use it or do not use it, using it gives a refund, not using it does not give a refund, that is the choice.

MalMonroe said:

Sorry to say that your related experience really isn't helping to raise the profile of Costco to me - a massive international concern should be willing to be flexible where loyal customers are concerned. (Sainsbury's can do it! And they're not half as big.) 

They are a massive operation, because of that they have to have systems and processes. What they have offered is perfectly reasonable, even if it is not what the OP wants.

MalMonroe said:

I do hope you manage to sort things out to your satisfaction. In my own humble opinion, for what it's worth, they should be bending over backwards to help. They do not deserve your custom.

I think you hugely over estimate the OP's or indeed the importance of any of us to a multi-national with revenue of $200 billion. People can vote with their feet if that is their preference, but it is also worth keeping in mind that it is rarely worth cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. 

seanb89

I mean, serial complainer is one thing, but when you order from a fairly large company and your items either don't arrive, are missing part of the order, or are completely smashed on arrival, it's less serial complainer and more 'serially poor service'. Fortunately I've been able to identify the damage / problems for 2 of those orders and was able to reject delivery; a bottle of booze was harder to identify pre-opening unfortunately. On one hand, I am to blame as I return for their shoddy service; on the other, it wouldn't be an issue if their staff didn't seem to constantly obliterate my orders.

It is also important to note that the Costco warehouses and Costco online system are entirely separate, otherwise I could simply go to my local Costco and resolve the issue. Staff in warehouses are very friendly and very reasonable - the online staff are quite distant and don't really seem to have that customer connection you get in store.

I have reached back out to try to get a sensible solution. Given the previously mentioned legal rights presented in the discussion previously, I'm hoping I have some element of recourse, but it is just baffling that their approach is to simply do nothing and then  when pressed for a solution over a week later, become hostile.

powerful_Rogue

seanb89 said:

I mean, serial complainer is one thing, but when you order from a fairly large company and your items either don't arrive, are missing part of the order, or are completely smashed on arrival, it's less serial complainer and more 'serially poor service'. Fortunately I've been able to identify the damage / problems for 2 of those orders and was able to reject delivery; a bottle of booze was harder to identify pre-opening unfortunately. On one hand, I am to blame as I return for their shoddy service; on the other, it wouldn't be an issue if their staff didn't seem to constantly obliterate my orders.

It is also important to note that the Costco warehouses and Costco online system are entirely separate, otherwise I could simply go to my local Costco and resolve the issue. Staff in warehouses are very friendly and very reasonable - the online staff are quite distant and don't really seem to have that customer connection you get in store.

I have reached back out to try to get a sensible solution. Given the previously mentioned legal rights presented in the discussion previously, I'm hoping I have some element of recourse, but it is just baffling that their approach is to simply do nothing and then  when pressed for a solution over a week later, become hostile.

They have offered you  a refund when you return the item. That's not doing nothing.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

boobyd said:

"A price reduction is typically the difference between what was paid for and what was received which sounds easy to apply in this instance"
Just a question,Alcohol has a minimum pricing level,what happens if that's why they won't reduce,does Consumer law trump Licencing law so only a return is possible?Curious

If you're able to find what you received being sold to make the price comparison I would assume that comparison price complies with the min unit price? 

Alderbank said:

Their choice though.

@Alderbank

What are you basing this on? 

Consumers do have a right to a price reduction but only in some circumstances, it's not an unqualified right. 
These circumstances are defined and are typically where repair or replacement is impossible or where repair has been attempted unsuccessfully, such as where the restoration of a family heirloom or work of art has been bodged.

The reason why the consumer does not always have the right to say after a purchase 'I claim a 30% price reduction back for these goods but I do not have to return them' is presumably because that would be open to abuse.

The exemptions would not normally apply to a bottle of liquor although they could if it is exceptionally rare and there are only a few bottles known to exist.

I believe the relevant parts of CRA 2015 are s20(11) and s20(12) but I do find these difficult to understand:

(11)To the extent that the consumer transferred anything else under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of what the consumer transferred, unless subsection (12) applies.
(12)To the extent that the consumer transferred under the contract something for which the same amount of the same thing cannot be substituted, the consumer is entitled to receive back in its original state whatever the consumer transferred.

I think the intent of those is to prevent the restorer from saying, 'If I have to give you 50% of the restoration fee back then 50% of the restoration work belongs to me.'

Lots here I'm not sure about. I look forward to any comments with interest.

PS: the minimum pricing here in Scotland for a bottle of spirits is about £14. The OP would be exceptionally lucky to get a nice bottle of vintage Armagnac reduced to that, even from Costco!

The regs you've quoted refer to the method of payment, whilst most payments are money that's not always the case, such as part exchange or vouchers
. 
The guidance notes on the CRA are pretty handy  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/2

If money was not used to pay for the goods, under subsections (11) and (12), the consumer is not entitled to money back but the “refund” would be a return of whatever the consumer gave in exchange for the goods (see examples below). If this cannot be returned to the consumer due to the nature of the exchange, then, under subsection (18) and (19), the consumer may not demand a refund but may pursue a damages claim. The consumer still has a “right to reject” (that is, to reject the goods and treat the contract as at an end) in this situation, but the means of obtaining money back is different. Examples of situations where these subsections may apply include:

• A toy “bought” with vouchers collected from cereal packets. In this case it would be possible to return equivalent vouchers (even though they would not necessarily be the actual vouchers that the consumer cut out) and a “refund” could therefore take that form under subsection (11).

• A microwave supplied to the consumer by a trader specialising in refurbishment of white-goods, in exchange for the consumer’s old fridge-freezer. In this case, if the fridge-freezer was still available in an unchanged state, then this could be returned to the consumer as a “refund” under subsection (12), but if it was no longer available, or had been refurbished, then a refund would not be possible.

You are correct about the circumstances but they are exactly equal to those required for the final right to reject (for a refund) with the caveat of it not applying should payment not be with money.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/6

This section provides for the consumer’s rights to reduction of the purchase price or to reject the goods and obtain a (partial) refund. These are generally available if repair or replacement of the goods has not been possible or has not corrected the fault. Under subsection (4), if the consumer transferred something other than money for the goods, and the thing transferred cannot be returned in the same state or divided sufficiently to give back to the consumer the appropriate amount the consumer may not seek a reduction in the purchase price.

The section provides that, if repair or replacement was impossible or if the consumer’s goods continue to be substandard after the consumer has either:

• already undergone one repair or replacement of the goods by the trader; or

• sought a repair or replacement but this was not carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenient to the consumer,

the consumer may either:

• keep the goods and insist on a reduction in the price; or

• reject the goods and obtain a refund which may, in some circumstances, be subject to a deduction to take account of any use the consumer has had of the goods.

If the consumer opts to keep the goods and require a reduction in price the question of what is an appropriate amount will depend on the circumstances and the remaining functionality of the goods. It is intended that the reduction in price should reflect the difference in value between what the consumer paid for and the value of what they actually receive, and could be as much as a full refund or the full amount already paid.

That last sentence pretty much rules out any avenue for abuse, were the consumer to insist upon a price reduction that was too great the trader can always refuse leaving the consumer with the option to have the amount clarified via small claims.

I don't see anything in the regs or guidance notes that would suggest it's not an unqualified right, rather the opposite  

powerful_Rogue

What's the difference in price?

elsien

powerful_Rogue said:

What's the difference in price?

£35 as per their earlier post. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MattMattMattUK said:

MalMonroe said:

Hi, is there any chance you can go back to them and ask to speak to a really very senior member of staff? The CEO in the UK, even?

Do you genuinely think that the CEO of CostCo, or even "really very senior member of staff" will speak to someone who has a minor customer service complaint? 

There's a contact on CEO email for the UK managing director, whilst such email addresses are rarely monitored by the person at the very top they are often picked up an executive level of customer service who tend to perform far better than general customer service.

Whilst it's not worded well, the advice isn't as outlandish as it may appear.

The mention of them having "systems" is academic, the regs provide for a price reduction, if such a large company doesn't have a system in place to abide by the regs, perhaps they should, it's certainly not reasonable to deny the OP the rights afforded to them by the regs. 

The topic is consumer rights rather than what Costco happen to want  

theoretica

Once you return this, they will have it in stock - could you suggest returning it for a full refund and then have this cheaper one sent to you as a 'new' purchase?

powerful_Rogue

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

I don't think you would succeed on the latter. This is a breach of contract, they sent you the wrong item so didn't fulfil the contract. They can't supply the original item, so can only refund to put you back into the original position.