Returns on BOGOFs?

hollydays

Respect-exactly-

hollydays

uktim29 wrote: »

Funny, technically it's wrong but technically it's factual!
This sort of situation always makes me laugh, is it a case of the truth hurts? Is it expected that you should protect customers about the truth about themselves?
But then if you do that your lieing!
So if you lie to customers it makes them happy. The case here may just have needed not to say anything. But more often than not customers are wrong but you have to convery otherwise (it's actually lieing to them if you really look at it properly). Most people won't look at it that way probably because they don't want to, but at the end of the day it's true.

Customers would prefer to be lied to than told the truth in certain situations (they like to believe the lie because it's nice to them) but it's a lie.




Oh dear Tim :".more often than not customers are wrong."

Tim,staff ARE supposed to be nice to customers,it should be effortless-so that they give you their custom-geddit?

.

If the garden centre was Wyevale ,they offer a "No quibble 5 year guarantee on hardy plants".

cheapscate

uktim29 wrote: »

Is it expected that you should protect customers about the truth about themselves?

What truth? That customers expect to be dealt with politely.

helloecho

uktim29 wrote: »

So if you lie to customers it makes them happy. The case here may just have needed not to say anything. But more often than not customers are wrong but you have to convery otherwise (it's actually lieing to them if you really look at it properly). Most people won't look at it that way probably because they don't want to, but at the end of the day it's true.

Customers would prefer to be lied to than told the truth in certain situations (they like to believe the lie because it's nice to them) but it's a lie.

Er, yes. That's exactly what they should be doing! A shop assistant is employed to serve customers, not to provide a running commentary on the relative morality of their every action. If that's what they're good at, then perhaps they ought to get a job writing their own newspaper column, not working behind the til in a f***ing shop! They're paid to do a job, and that job is to serve customers and do as instructed by their management without fuss... we don't really want to hear their opinions.

Customer service IS an illusion... it's all about making the customer believe they are getting a good deal and great service and keeping them happy, even if in reality they're getting ripped off and screwed over.

Grimgrum

Thank you for your interest and replies and apologies to you all for my mistake, in the excitement of my first ever post I used the term BOGOF when it was actually 3 for 2.
I returned one rose of the three because it had died the other two are planted in my garden and growing ok, I do not think I could have realistically returned them also.

When you buy an offer such as this the roses are all scanned in with the full prices applied and then the price of one is deducted from the total bill, this leads me to think that it must be impossible to state which rose is regarded as the free rose. The roses were chosen from a selection of many types i.e. shrub and rambler and I had no duplicates so one could not be regarded as a substitute for the other.

If the offer had been a third off then the amount paid to the seller would have been the same and no problem with the return but the third rose was offered and as inducement and as such it is no advantage to the buyer if they do not have the same rights to the use and enjoyment of the free item as they do to the items for which they have paid the full price.
Also the seller guarantees all plants for five years therefore the free rose because it is supplied by them is also covered by this guarantee. If all the roses had died I would not expect to be refunded for all three but it might be argued that my expectation was to have the use and benefit of three roses therefore the third rose might be recompensed by replacement or substitute.

I do not know if the above ideas are enshrined in consumer law or not I am waiting for a reply from Consumer Direct, if I was wrong to obtain a refund then they can have their money back, I would just like to know if my humiliation in front of a queue of other customers was justified although certainly not acceptable.
Thanks for your interest

Bamber19

Well Consumer Law wouldn't necessarily entitle you to any refund, the rose died but that is not a sign of it being "faulty" the 5 year guarantee is in addition to your statutory rights and is in fact giving you added protection so if it is the terms of that which you are interested in then you wont find it in a statute book. Basically whatever their policy in these situations is would be how it should go (unless of course their policy is entirely contrary to the 3 for 2 agreement.) In this situation clearly the fairest remedy for all parties would be to take the cost of 2 roses, divide by 3 and refund this as you are taking back 1/3 of the products. One is free, but in name only as it is clearly part of the contract with the shop.

hollydays

Agree with a lot of that,but why isn't the rose dying a sign of it being "faulty"?

Bamber19

because they can die for a plethora of reasons outwith the rose having some sort of genetic error, I'd imagine a living plant would be one of the more difficult things to prove either way that there is an inherent fault, although I doubt someone would take it to the level of going to court over it so proving a fault probably wouldn't be an issue, someone would be likely to back down, well, I mean, they have already haven't they.

Grimgrum

David Austin roses have the cultivar budded/grafted on to a common rootstock it was these grafts which had failed and died. The plant was classed as faulty by the assistant not a problem there just the refund issue.

TomsMom

She consulted her manager who gave a refund as a gesture of good will. The good will did not include the assistant who handed over the refund saying “Here’s the money for the thing you never paid for in the first place”.

Regardless of whether or not you should have had a refund/part refund/replacement under guarantee, the fact is that the manager authorised a refund - it was his choice, you didn't hold a gun to his head I presume. As such I do not think the assistant had any right to pass such a comment, it was downright rude and I would have complained about her attitude directly to her and then to her manager.

I would never speak to my customers in that way nor would I expect any staff (if I employed any) to do so either.