MOTHERCARE Trying for A Refund but Shop is Refusing

uktim29

tigtag02 wrote: »

It makes you little better than how you are portraying the OP who accepted his misquote of the act but was unhappy with the SA attitude!!

No.

I don't act like that as I go about life. I however have had to put up with people like that when I worked in retail. I only ever speak to people in that way if they they did it first to either myself or another. Perhaps it will help them learn or at least create an amount of self awareness that is otherwise clearly lacking.

And you speak of sweeping statements! And where has the op accpeted they misquoted the SOG act, more importantly to the sales assistant involved?

Blacksheep1979

tigtag02 wrote: »

I think GF was lookig for advice. Not his wrists slapping and the 3rd degree :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

well she was wrong - hopefully this may encourage her to act with a little bit of decency from now on towards other members of society.

tigtag02

I think there are many who need to refresh themselves with Martin's *Please be nice to ALL moneysavers*

Would an approriate answer not have been:

*Actually GF you misquoted the sales of goods act and the SA was well within her rights* as opposed to just being downright nasty to him!!

uktim29

tigtag02 wrote: »

I think there are many who need to refresh themselves with Martin's *Please be nice to ALL moneysavers*

Including you. Also why just users of this forum. Why can't consumers these days try and be a bit more civil rather than using scare tactics for laws they know nothing about and just try to be in general slightly more co-operative.

ginormousflares

Oh my gosh a right ding dong here. Thank you tig tag for your kind support. I very rarely step outside of the debtfreewannabee board, I suppose for this very reason. MSE is unique in the way it's members offer so much support and advice; well most of MSE maybe it is the fact that I have so much debt and am probably lowlife in their eyes. Anyway, I was wrong to mis-quote the Sale of Goods Act especially as I didn't really know what I was talking about, it backfired in my face. However, I was not being abusive or offensive. I believe that she did not handle the situation very well and was in actual fact far more abusive to me than I was to her which is not good customer service and does not bode well for the reputation of that store especially as onlooking customers were far from impressed. The customer is always right. I too work in an environment were I provide a service to customers and there are ways and means of dealing with 'awkward' customers such as being assertive. But there you go.

Blacksheep1979

she didn't handle it well, you didn't handle it well - maybe time to let it rest?

ginormousflares

I agree. I wouldn't gain anything probably anyway. For the record, I'm a decent person law abiding and all that, just a bit daft sometimes.

V_tricky

This isn't in relation to Mothercare, but I recall being accused of being RACIST by one of my customers for advising that Scottish police reports into road traffic accidents simply record the facts - ie the involved party's details etc, rather than the attending officers personal views on the situation.

That really got my goat actually, but unless you work in a particular field how can you be expected to know the ins & outs?

If I'd have been the person at Mcare faced with someone misquoting the law, I'm afraid I would have simply been inclined to advise politely what the SoG act covers, and explained that it only entitled the purchaser to a replacement or repair. There was no need to get shirty, dismissive or rude

In my field of work a lot of people have some very odd views on what the law covers, but part of my job is to explain factually and in laymans terms to ensure that my customers know what they're entitled to - and also what they're not. If every time a punter rang or wrote to me getting the wrong end of the stick I was rude like that then I wouldn't have many punters left, and no doubt my line manager would have a thing or two to say to me!

If I've given the correct information out, and the person is still not happy, then I would *offer* my head office address (after all, I have nothing to hide), and suggest that if they are unhappy with what I've said that they take legal advice, but in the nicest possible way.

And as a customer, if I'd got the wrong end of the stick and took their word that I was asking for something I wasn't entitled to (bearing in mind some SA's don't know one end of retail law from another) then I would still be minded to lodge a letter of dissatisfaction with their HQ about the way it was dealt with.

To err is human, but there is no need for rudeness

uktim29

V_tricky wrote: »

To err is human, but there is no need for rudeness

I have dealt with many people like they op. They all think they were polite but in fact tend to be the complete opposite. The op admits to trying to scare the member of staff which whether you like it or not does amount to harassment. The member of staff pointed this out and knew the op wasn't going to take no for an answer. Not taking no for an answer and which would mean a refusal to leave the person your talking to alone and also giving the impression you don't intend to give up is also harassment.

You have no idea of how the op was actually behaving but it's obvious there was no talking to them as they decided they needed to start making up laws.

This sort of behavior in itself is very rude. Why do people never acknowledge the rudeness of the consumer? They turn a blind eye! To really determine rudeness and attitude of society you need to ignore roles and consider the basics of just being polite to the other person your speaking to. The op obviously had no intention of that if they decided to use behavioral tactics such as scare tactics.

When will they day come when some members of society will finally acknowledge that just because someone is doing a job there is no reason why you can't be polite to them as well. The op was the originator of the bad behavior and is a complete hypocrite with no self awareness if they complain.

To sum up. There seems to be a few in society that will use another persons role as an excuse to act in a way (almost as if they think it's a right/perfectly allowed) that is harassing to the other person. In this case they admit to scare tactics. Then the other person reacts in a human way then the original person has the cheek to complain about that person even calling their behavior disgraceful. People like that are complete and utter hypocrites, the lowest of society.

RadoJo

tigtag02 wrote: »

I think there are many who need to refresh themselves with Martin's *Please be nice to ALL moneysavers*

Would an approriate answer not have been:

*Actually GF you misquoted the sales of goods act and the SA was well within her rights* as opposed to just being downright nasty to him!!

Where exactly was I nasty? All I had to go on was the OP, and I thought they were complaining over nothing having admitted that they were trying it on with their interpretation of SOGA. There was no mention of a specific comment from the Mothercare employee which was rude or aggressive, and as such I gave my perspective on the OPs determination to complain.

If you choose to apply your own reading of my post, then so be it, but you are taking offence on behalf of someone else because I was trying to ascertain exactly what had happened and why the OP still felt as though the sales assistant's behaviour warranted a complaint. As it turns out, the OP has still not really explained why they thought a complaint was needed, but as they seem happy with the advice on the thread, I guess it has accomplished it's purpose. Please feel free to read this post in whatever tone you choose - I can cope with being misinterpreted by people who believe that disagreeing with someone is akin to being nasty.