Should refunds be paid back to you in the same way you originally paid?

djpalmer32

I recently order some pizzas via Pizza Express's online delivery service. On delivery one of the pizzas was missing. I contacted Pizza Express via their online contact system and received an apology, and a complimentary main course was added to my Pizza Express loyalty app. I did not contact the store from where the Pizza was delivered from. 

My point is though I thought companies were obliged to refund you the same way as you made the original payment, i.e. I paid by debit card, so a refund should have been added to my debit card.

My issue is that though Pizza Express have essentially given me the equivalent of a refund on my loyalty app, I'm stuck with using the app to be able to use that complimentary meal.

Am I correct on the refund point?

Thanks in anticipation.

Mark_d

Companies can refund you in any method you're happy to accept

djpalmer32

Mark_d said:

Companies can refund you in any method you're happy to accept

I found this on a legal site:

"If they opt for a refund, the value of the refund must be equal to the price they initially paid, and must be processed in the same form as the original payment."

.... I'm confused as I'm seeing contradictory information.

Mark_d

djpalmer32 said:

Mark_d said:

Companies can refund you in any method you're happy to accept

I found this on a legal site:

"If they opt for a refund, the value of the refund must be equal to the price they initially paid, and must be processed in the same form as the original payment."

.... I'm confused as I'm seeing contradictory information.

There is so much nonsense posted on the internet.  I would only trust reputable websites.

Pizza Express compensated you for the missing pizza by offering you a complimentary main course.  It appears that you accepted this offer.

Pizza Express could have given you anything, of any value.  If you accept then everyone is happy and the matter is resolved.

user1977

Do you want a refund? Have you asked them for a refund?

Grumpy_chap

djpalmer32 said:

I recently order some pizzas via Pizza Express's online delivery service. On delivery one of the pizzas was missing. I contacted Pizza Express via their online contact system and received an apology, and a complimentary main course was added to my Pizza Express loyalty app. I did not contact the store from where the Pizza was delivered from. 

My point is though I thought companies were obliged to refund you the same way as you made the original payment, i.e. I paid by debit card, so a refund should have been added to my debit card.

My issue is that though Pizza Express have essentially given me the equivalent of a refund on my loyalty app, I'm stuck with using the app to be able to use that complimentary meal.

Am I correct on the refund point?

Thanks in anticipation.

How many pizzas did you order?
"Some pizzas" is an unusual way of expressing a quantity of pizzas.
Did you pay for all the pizzas, or was there a "free" pizza that ended up being the missing one? 
Pizza takeaway stores can often run "meal deal" offers or "buy any pizza get another free" type deals.  In such a case, refunding the missing pizza may be difficult to ascertain an accurate value to - if you were refunded the proportion of the "deal" price it may be insufficient to the allow you to buy another pizza on an other occasion, so the complimentary pizza in the future may be the most practical way of meaningfully refunding the proportion of the total value.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Mark_d said:

There is so much nonsense posted on the internet. 

There is indeed!

This is likely covered under Section 25 of the CRA

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/25

(1)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods less than the trader contracted to supply, the consumer may reject them, but if the consumer accepts them the consumer must pay for them at the contract rate.

(2)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods larger than the trader contracted to supply, the consumer may accept the goods included in the contract and reject the rest, or may reject all of the goods.

(3)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods larger than the trader contracted to supply and the consumer accepts all of the goods delivered, the consumer must pay for them at the contract rate.

There is no mention of refunds, it is written to presume a trader would only charge the consumer for quantity provided, at the contract rate.

OP if they won't refund back to your card might be worth a chat with the bank about a chargeback, from posts on here before they will cover part refunds, @born_again might advise on the specifics of your situation.  

born_again

They are supposed to. But It appears that OP has taken the alternative offer.
They could go back & say they want a refund to retailer, But a chargeback is a option. OP would need a breakdown of the costs of the missing pizza. So invoice (not a menu)
Although OP would have to reject the current offer. Or they will reject on grounds they have already refunded.

In reality this might be better resolved by visit to store supplying.

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Mark_d said:

There is so much nonsense posted on the internet. 

There is indeed!

This is likely covered under Section 25 of the CRA

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/25

(1)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods less than the trader contracted to supply, the consumer may reject them, but if the consumer accepts them the consumer must pay for them at the contract rate.

(2)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods larger than the trader contracted to supply, the consumer may accept the goods included in the contract and reject the rest, or may reject all of the goods.

(3)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods larger than the trader contracted to supply and the consumer accepts all of the goods delivered, the consumer must pay for them at the contract rate.

There is no mention of refunds, it is written to presume a trader would only charge the consumer for quantity provided, at the contract rate.

OP if they won't refund back to your card might be worth a chat with the bank about a chargeback, from posts on here before they will cover part refunds, @born_again might advise on the specifics of your situation.  

I'd suggest that that section is a bit bizarre and out of place in a "consumer rights" statute.  It seems to be tailored to apply to business contracts rather than consumer.  I see the explanatory note suggests it's a hangover from SOGA.  I wouldn't be surprised if its inclusion is a drafting error.

Okell

djpalmer32 said:

Mark_d said:

Companies can refund you in any method you're happy to accept

I found this on a legal site:

"If they opt for a refund, the value of the refund must be equal to the price they initially paid, and must be processed in the same form as the original payment."

.... I'm confused as I'm seeing contradictory information.

I suspect you have quoted that legal site out of context.

I suspect it relates to s 20(16) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) which says that when a consumer exercises their right to reject goods as faulty (or whatever) then they must be refunded via the same means of payment as they used - unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise.

It's not clear to me if you actually accepted the complimentary voucher or not, but I suppose you could possibly have argued** at the time that the pizza delivery was not as described, that you were therefore entitled to a price reduction, and that by analogy with s 20(16) you should have been refunded by the same method that you had used to pay.  But that boat seems to have sailed...


** That's certainly what I'd have argued...

PHK

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Mark_d said:

There is so much nonsense posted on the internet. 

There is indeed!

This is likely covered under Section 25 of the CRA

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/25

(1)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods less than the trader contracted to supply, the consumer may reject them, but if the consumer accepts them the consumer must pay for them at the contract rate.

(2)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods larger than the trader contracted to supply, the consumer may accept the goods included in the contract and reject the rest, or may reject all of the goods.

(3)Where the trader delivers to the consumer a quantity of goods larger than the trader contracted to supply and the consumer accepts all of the goods delivered, the consumer must pay for them at the contract rate.

There is no mention of refunds, it is written to presume a trader would only charge the consumer for quantity provided, at the contract rate.

OP if they won't refund back to your card might be worth a chat with the bank about a chargeback, from posts on here before they will cover part refunds, @born_again might advise on the specifics of your situation.  

I'd suggest that that section is a bit bizarre and out of place in a "consumer rights" statute.  It seems to be tailored to apply to business contracts rather than consumer.  I see the explanatory note suggests it's a hangover from SOGA.  I wouldn't be surprised if its inclusion is a drafting error.

A bit off topic but I think it's okay. Think of offers like  £5 each or three for £12. If the trader accepts an order for three but delivers two and the customer chooses to keep them then the trader must charge £4 each not £5 each.