Absolutely not what I would say at all! INSIST that the vehicle be put up on the hoist (or in the bay with hood open) depending why it was there for repair, or a test drive if it's a driveability problem and walk through it with them.
I don't think you'll find anyone (not a Manager, owner or technician) that will stand behind shitty work and say it's okay.
If someone is getting charged "hoist time" they are definitely getting hosed. In all of my years and all of my stores and Corporation work I have never heard of nor seen a customer charged hoist time. I call bullshit on that one until I see a bill from a CT store with a hoist time charge on it!On to this con already. You fail to mention is that CT will BILL for LABOUR and HOIST TIME or keep the car in the garage until the bill is paid like this poor guy.
the mystery shopper got a $20.00 inspection on the ghost vehicle by request. No auto shop looks over every part of a vehicle for a greenback. If the mystery shop was played out honestly and with integrity they would have specifically said I have this type of noise of this type of problem coming from this area of my car. Not, hey check out my car. LOL they are mechanics. cars make noises and have thousands of parts. The more vague the information, the more difficult it is to find what's wrong. The more detail, the easier it is to hone in on the problem.https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/personal-stories/732-canadian-tire-ripped-me-off.html
It wasn't all that hard for CBC found all three stooges, and even the CT vice president stooge himself saying it was all ok and nothing wrong happened. Lets not forget about the test they failed after telling the mystery shopper that the whole car would be looked over.
Well you're right on one thing. YOu haven't visited my repair shop so you can't say how it would be. Period.Oh, yes, isn't the lovely CT Me just SO NICE!!?
Isn't she just radiantly pleasant and helpful?
My, it would be such a joy to take one's vehichle to her for some of her deeply-felt TLC!
I bet she personally vacuums and hand-waxes each vehicle before returning the sparkling, newly-cut keys to the lucky owner for whom she rolled out the red carpet.
Well, I haven't had the (dis)pleasure of visiting her illustrious repair shop, so I can't really say how it would be.
But I CAN tell you what would happen if one dared to attempt to obtain a refund on a defective item, fresh out of the box from a store run by our charming Ms. CT Me.
Do you suppose for one second her actions would be even influenced by the laws of the province in which she has chosen to do business?
Of course not! Her corporate lawyers (does she hate them or love them? She can't seem to decide) have, in their supreme arrogance, elected to simply ignore these laws. Instead, they have a web site that clevery says, "If a product is defective, the manufacturer's warranty will apply".
As if THEY get to decide. The arrogance is chilling.
Take, for example, Ontario. The CPA of 2002 addresses this specifically. It says that the CPA (and not the retailer's desires) take precedence.
The link is here: "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A)"
"9. (3) Any term or acknowledgement, whether part of the consumer agreement or not, that purports to negate or vary any implied condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act or any deemed condition or warranty under this Act is void."
Yes, there is a manufacture's warranty. But the consumer doesn't have to be limited by it - they can insist on their rights under the law.
So, upon arrival at the gleaming Returns counter at CT Me lustrous store, defunct piece of junk in hand, how might one imagine they would be greeted?
Would it be, "Yes, sir, your purchase is covered by the CPA of 2002. Would you like an exchange, or a full refund? The choice is entirely up to you."
Hah!
Actually, you don't need to imagine. You just need to read Post #9 on the "Sale of Goods Act" thread:
[/quote]Yikes! Who is this dragon lady, and what has she done with the pleasant CT Me we've all come to know and love???
Oh, wait. This is the REAL "CT Me", who's recently decided to start pretending she can be reasonable.
call bullshit on that one until I see a...
So again joe public. You have ZERO chance if you take your car to Canadian Tire. ZERO! Your car will be screwed with, you will be billed higher. If you're concerned and take it back and "INSIST" that it be hoisted up, you will billed for that as well. AND you will still be left holding the bag because as CBC has amply shown, none of the 3 stooges or the vice president will care or make it right.
ZERO! we fuck up every car and screw every customer that comes into every bay in the Country. 5500 bays Coast to Coast. The claims get more ridiculous as the days go on.
A bill for "insisting" to hoist a car up to rectify a problem that you caused in the first place is still a bill no matter how you breakdown it down. BTW we've been calling bullshit on you and kicking you in the teeth with proof since day one. Too bad you're the retarded chicken shit who loses each argument can't step up to the plate. Refresh your memories on the threads and relive the ass whipping served. BTW idiot, you said it yourself that each CT is independently owned and if so wouldn't tool, equipment, labour charges vary too??????????? I thought so retard.
BTW, you're not even an owner, just related to one.
So true and worth properly quoting again. You confirmed CT owners shitty attitude on the way CT treated the "old man", not me. BTW, if you were so tuned into good customer service, one of your multiple personalities would have posted som, much much earlier. But implying about a free hoist and PRETENDING to be genuinely concerned for quality and customer safety is the best you can PRETEND to offer, more like lie about.
Yes you do. And that includes fucking up the interpretation of consumer laws to rip off the customer. And when you're not fucking that up you're fucking up cars and safety. Just like the CT owner who you profess to know, intentionally and knowingly sold a kid the defective bike that FUCKED UP HIS FACE AND BRAIN FOREVER.
I didn't make up the laws it's all there provided by the FACTS of the LINKS I PROVIDED. Accordingly Canadian Tire is WELL WITHIN THE LAW of refunds and respecting consumer protection. Our team of lawyers make sure of that. I doubt that you can be that sure of consumer laws. So if a few customers are too lazy to use the warranty supplied with those purchases that are defective then too bad so sad. This the new reality of retail and it's working. We have WRITTEN policies all over the store, in the front, in the back, at the cash register on your way out. If customers choose not to read it and still want to buy those products from us then they can't say they didn't know. It may take a bad product or two to educate them to read the fine print but it's the cost of their education. ... For too long retailers have shouldered the burden of bad products as your link to Ellenroseman have indicated. Since you have offered no more proof other than talk around issues then I consider this issue closed.
BTW, you're not even an owner, just related to one.
I for one appreciate the links to all the consumer protection acts and can form my own opinions. I don't need some snotty CT Owner telling me self serving "consumer laws" that short change my pocket book and the quality of goods I keep, with one sided store policies.
I also think it's deplorable that one ct owner would knowingly sell a defective good leading to a permanent disabled life for a young man, and then for another ct owner to dismiss it so easily with " it's an isolated incident" so what attitude. Is playing with the consumers safety at Canadian Tire really that isolated?
Well there is the CBC report, the bike incident, the piles and piles of other complaints on this board and others on shoddy automotive service damaging cars, a post here about a lady going through a red light, unable to stop after a brake job at CT. So are these cases really that isolated? There's also hidden footage of a CT mechanic swapping a perfectly good part that AMA has on it's site. Do I get a "so what" from the CT owner?
Like somebody said, you have ZERO chance if you take your car to Canadian Tire. ZERO.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
- BTW, you're not even an owner, just related to one.
DavidLER
- Interesting. How do you know?
I'm not the one telling you the consumer laws. DavidLER is the one who posts all the links …
… and his interpretations.
Interesting. How do you know?
Very interesting I agree. So in order to know that information, you would also have to know whO i am, who the owner I apparently am related to is and by knowing all of that, you'd be likely to know which City/Town and which store. So..... let er rip! Details please
Your friends on here will side with you because you're united in hating CT.
Have you nothing other then a foul mouth to speak with?
Let's make several things clear. I have ZERO to do with this bogus CBC report, which at best is witch hunting poor journalism.
the face of additional facts (other major safety problems of other companies) you fail to acknowledge that they exist or happened.
I have never heard of or seen any CT store charging for a hoist fee. period. Show me otherwise or its a dead issue.
despite your foul mouth you could be the most caring empathetic human being in the world for all I know.
Dude can you read or do you just selectively read and decide what you like and don't like? I have acknowledged on many occasions that problems exist with auto service, and all skilled trades for that matter. CT, small shops, dealers.... we all suffer from the same crooked mechanic problems at various times. There has been undercover investigations for years, some prove wrongdoing, some don't. This particular example though is weak at best, which is the reason it got buried pretty quick. CBC is the only one that reported on it, nobody else would even put it as back page news.I usually like my women thin and young but you'll do for now porky. Grab some wallet from the customer, now squeal like it matters piggy.
That's right piggy, turn the other way because you don't like that spot.
I have no problem with CPA links and information. They are part of doing business. They serve to protect consumers, and despite the fact i'm a retailer, I am also a consumer. The legislation protects me as much as it protects the next guy. The problem I have, is when someone (DavidLER) tries to interpret them without truly knowing the rules. It has zero impact on me at the end of the day, all its doing is misinforming customers of their rights, which will lead them to disappointment when they find out they were given bum information. Since you all stick together, if you want to be a bunch of lemmings and follow eachother down the wrong path... have at 'er.No wonder you don't like all those CPA links the boy wonder has brought. Afraid of an informed customer? Afraid of making money honestly?
I'm not interested in specifics of these companies. The reports are there for millions to read. multiple deaths and injury as a result of their performances at various stages over the years. My point is if you want to pick on one company (mine), open your eyes to what else is going on. Apples to apples my friend. Also worth noting, despite their incompetence at some stage, that does not render these companies or their people evil, terrible, grossly incompetent as a whole... and it didn't render them broke. Ford and Firestone still make cars and tires. Maple Leaf foods still processes food. The world moves on when things go wrong.You forget where you're at? Attention span of a goldfish. Go ahead and talk as much as you like with as much detail as you can about those companies then.
Okay then i won't tell you free, since you won't listen to it.Close your eyes and click your heels all you want SU-EEE. Ignore it or hate it all you want, the Canadian Tire HOIST FEE much like the fabled CPA unicorn and the 'bogus CBC report' very much exists. So if you hoisted a car up for a customer after he came back how much more do you bill them for? Don't tell me free?!?!!
I'm not the one telling you the consumer laws. DavidLER is the one who posts all the links and his interpretations.
Indeed I have posted information regarding consumer laws, some of which are my interpretations
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?