Collecting ID and Personal Information

A common topic of discussion is CT's practice of requesting and recording personal information, before processing a return.

The official web site on Returns, Refunds & Exchanges (Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire) states:

"Your name, residence address and phone number will be required. This information is collected, used and retained to help prevent fraud, and may only be disclosed within Canadian Tire. Valid photo ID may be required to confirm this information."

So, according to their own policy, they are only supposed to "collect" (i.e., record):
- Your name.
- Your address.
- Your home telephone number.

Although you may be "required" by CT to show photo ID (like a driver's license), they are not supposed to collect/record anything from the license (or other photo ID).

There has been some comments on whether or not even the above is really allowed.

Here's a post from the "Return Policy" thread:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/personal-stories/32-return-policy-8.html#post2027

PIPA is Personal Information Protection Act

"Under PIPA, an organization may not:
■ refuse to supply you with a product or service because
you do not consent to the collection, use or disclosure
of your personal information for purposes that are not
necessary for the transaction"

Processing a return is a "service".

Personal identification is not "necessary" for the transaction, and neither is a receipt. Those are just things that Canadian Tire would prefer to have.

There have also been routine reports that store staff are recording information from driver's licenses or other ID, which is against CT's own written policy.

Unregistered said:

A common topic of discussion is CT's practice of requesting and recording personal information, before processing a return.

The official web site on Returns, Refunds & Exchanges (Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire) states:

"Your name, residence address and phone number will be required. This information is collected, used and retained to help prevent fraud, and may only be disclosed within Canadian Tire. Valid photo ID may be required to confirm this information."

So, according to their own policy, they are only supposed to "collect" (i.e., record):
- Your name.
- Your address.
- Your home telephone number.

Although you may be "required" by CT to show photo ID (like a driver's license), they are not supposed to collect/record anything from the license (or other photo ID).

There has been some comments on whether or not even the above is really allowed.

Here's a post from the "Return Policy" thread:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/personal-stories/32-return-policy-8.html#post2027

PIPA is Personal Information Protection Act

"Under PIPA, an organization may not:
■ refuse to supply you with a product or service because
you do not consent to the collection, use or disclosure
of your personal information for purposes that are not
necessary for the transaction"

Processing a return is a "service".

Personal identification is not "necessary" for the transaction, and neither is a receipt. Those are just things that Canadian Tire would prefer to have.

There have also been routine reports that store staff are recording information from driver's licenses or other ID, which is against CT's own written policy.

Click to expand...

Cashing a cheque is a service....you going to try and open an account without ID?
The people on here just get more ridiculous and stupid each day.
And by the way, when YOU get to make the rules for businesses, let me know. Loser!

For opening an account, there are money laundering laws and revenue laws that apply. So, yeah, in that case, the bank is unable to open my account unless I can identify myself. Pretty reasonable, if you think about it for 5 seconds.

Oh, and for cheques? I deposit cheques into my own account all the time - I don't need to provide ID each tiem. Pretty reasonable, if you think about it. So, no, that example doesn't really work.

(Unless I go to a cashing service, and have to prove that I'm the one the cheque is made out to - again, all reasonable.)

But I'm glad that the CT reps are confirming that providing a refund or exchange is a service. That's a step in the right direction.

And since CT doesn't need ID in order to provide that service (all they need to do is hand over the money!), then CT can't refuse to provide that service, just because a consumer doesn't provide ID.

Of course, CT might not LIKE having to give people a refund without them showing ID. But too bad for CT- they can't just continue to ignore the laws.

Thanks for confiming that, CT person!

And, hey, nobody said consumers get to make the 'rules' for businesses. That's the role of government.

Sure, stores can make policies, but they have to at least comply with the law. Not too much to ask, really.

Collection of Personal Information
Limitations on collection
11(1) An organization may collect personal information only for
purposes that are reasonable.
(2) Where an organization collects personal information, it may do
so only to the extent that is reasonable for meeting the purposes for
which the information is collected.

Copied directly from PIPA

It is REASONABLE that in the effort to prevent returns fraud, an organization would ask a customer to show ID to process a return.



No information other then name phone number and address is collected. As previously discussed there is not even a field of entry to add a drivers license or something like that. Your claims are unfounded
you do have a right to access the information collected by an organization. if you're concerned, when asked, ask to see the screen that they are inputting information into. You have that right and you will see that the only data fields are name address and phone number.

Also in regards to a receipt, it is absolutely required if the store requests it. this is standard everywhere. Let's pose a scenario. DavidLER has probably tried this. Lets say Walmart sells an item for 29.99 - Canadian Tire has it in their flyer for 18.99 that week. Under your claim of no receipt, you could buy it at the tire, return it at walmart and profit 11 bucks each time.
Lets say I buy a hammer, and it sits in my toolbox for 6 months, never used. I see the price goes up. I take it back and return it for cash with no receipt, and profit on an item that is 6 months old.

Proof of purchase is required, to prevent this type of behaviour. it's that simple.
Despite your claim there is no rule, law or regulation that says receipts are not required and a retailer is obligated to give your money back even if you don't have the receipt.

Unregistered said:

For opening an account, there are money laundering laws and revenue laws that apply. So, yeah, in that case, the bank is unable to open my account unless I can identify myself. Pretty reasonable, if you think about it for 5 seconds.

Oh, and for cheques? I deposit cheques into my own account all the time - I don't need to provide ID each tiem. Pretty reasonable, if you think about it. So, no, that example doesn't really work.

(Unless I go to a cashing service, and have to prove that I'm the one the cheque is made out to - again, all reasonable.)

But I'm glad that the CT reps are confirming that providing a refund or exchange is a service. That's a step in the right direction.

And since CT doesn't need ID in order to provide that service (all they need to do is hand over the money!), then CT can't refuse to provide that service, just because a consumer doesn't provide ID.

Of course, CT might not LIKE having to give people a refund without them showing ID. But too bad for CT- they can't just continue to ignore the laws.

Thanks for confiming that, CT person!

And, hey, nobody said consumers get to make the 'rules' for businesses. That's the role of government.

Sure, stores can make policies, but they have to at least comply with the law. Not too much to ask, really.

Click to expand...

Where are these examples that the store policies are illegal? Almost every single retailer mentions somewhere in their policies that ID may be required....how come there is no mention that this is illegal by any credible source....just you...a promoter of fraud. Do you really think the banks collect and record ID for money laundering?.....it's for fraud
prevention, clear and simple. And since you, DavidLer support deception, thus fraud, I will doubly ensure that I protect my interests against the likes of you.

Unregistered said:

just found an interesting item for you.... in regards to your "illegal to ask for ID claim"

Click to expand...

sorry - who said it was "illegal to ask for ID"?

and what did you find for walmart?

Unregistered said:

There is not a field in the returns computer system to enter birth date or sex.... and etc does not cover anything. Customer information fields are limited to name phone number and address. Period. Nothing else goes into the computer. there's not even a spot to enter it if a clerk wanted to!

Click to expand...

Now, here's one claim that the Crappy People have made before, and which could easily prove.

They could easily supply us with some documentation to back up this claim.

For instance, a .pdf of a users maual that shows what fields exist and how they can be populated.

Or, a screen capture of the display the returns clerks use.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what proof they offer ...

Unregistered said:

Now, here's one claim that the Crappy People have made before, and which could easily prove.

They could easily supply us with some documentation to back up this claim.

For instance, a .pdf of a users maual that shows what fields exist and how they can be populated.

Or, a screen capture of the display the returns clerks use.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what proof they offer ...

Click to expand...

Here's a likely scenario. If we were to provide any proof, i GUARANTEE one of you haters would come back and say we doctored the screen shot or were lying. You'd NEVER accept that you were wrong. So here's your own test. stroll into Canadian Tire. Go purchase something for 10 bucks. Go grab a coffee at Tim Hortons, come back 20 minutes later and return it. As they are asking for your information, ask them to turn the screen so you can see for yourself.

I already know the answer. Find it out for yourself


PS - back to the OP of this thread, receipts are absolutely required to return an item if the retailer chooses so. As discussed and proven previously, returns are not mandated, they are a luxury that most retailers provide. As such, they may set their own rules around those returns as long as they honour warranty terms for defective items. Returns for unused items with documentation is 100% up to the discretion of the retailer. Most have a 90 day policy. They are bound by this policy because they post it.

Unregistered said:

PS - back to the OP of this thread, receipts are absolutely required to return an item if the retailer chooses so.

Click to expand...

you seem confused.

nobody said that receitps aren't needed.

you should do some fact checking before you post your bs here.

Unregistered said:

As discussed and proven previously, returns are not mandated, they are a luxury that most retailers provide. As such, they may set their own rules around those returns as long as they honour warranty terms for defective items.

Click to expand...

defective items are covered under provincial/territorial legislation and are NOT a luxury, or up to the retailer.

check out the threads that have provided all the evidence, and not just the wishful thinking of crappy tire.

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

when you start telling lies like this, is it any wonder that ordinary people don't believe anything you say after a while?

Unregistered said:

Returns for unused items with documentation is 100% up to the discretion of the retailer. Most have a 90 day policy. They are bound by this policy because they post it.

Click to expand...

wouldn't that be nice - if crappy tire started actually following their own policies instead of looking for any excuse to wriggle out of it.

excuses like consumers refusing to let them records information that isn't required to complete a refund.

Unregistered said:

you seem confused.

nobody said that receitps aren't needed.

you should do some fact checking before you post your bs here.

Click to expand...

fail
"Personal identification is not "necessary" for the transaction, and neither is a receipt. Those are just things that Canadian Tire would prefer to have."

That right there was the second last line from the very first post in this thread. YOUR BS NOT MINE!

defective items are covered under provincial/territorial legislation and are NOT a luxury, or up to the retailer.

check out the threads that have provided all the evidence, and not just the wishful thinking of crappy tire.

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

when you start telling lies like this, is it any wonder that ordinary people don't believe anything you say after a while?



wouldn't that be nice - if crappy tire started actually following their own policies instead of looking for any excuse to wriggle out of it.

excuses like consumers refusing to let them records information that isn't required to complete a refund.

Click to expand...

LOL posting to your own threads with your own claims does not count as a verifiable source for retail laws within Canada. First of all when I said luxury, I said for return to stock, not used items, returns ARE a luxury. I did not say thatt for defective items. Check your facts before posting your BS here. Hypocrit

Defective items must be dealt with by the original seller, ONLY to the original purchaser (except in Quebec where warranty is transferable).
So aside from your little typo about return to stock vs. defective, you are 100% correct, sort of. defective items are covered. There are rules and regulations that stipulate that the seller of a defective good must take action to remedy the problem. Said rules do not specify how that has to be remedied. So, if the warranty says repair, as long as it goes for repair and returns working (including refurbished parts if needed) - the seller has honoured the warranty, and provided a suitable good as per all applicable laws.

Unregistered said:

you seem confused.

nobody said that receitps aren't needed.

you should do some fact checking before you post your bs here.



defective items are covered under provincial/territorial legislation and are NOT a luxury, or up to the retailer.

check out the threads that have provided all the evidence, and not just the wishful thinking of crappy tire.

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

when you start telling lies like this, is it any wonder that ordinary people don't believe anything you say after a while?



wouldn't that be nice - if crappy tire started actually following their own policies instead of looking for any excuse to wriggle out of it.

excuses like consumers refusing to let them records information that isn't required to complete a refund.

Click to expand...

Actually, defective items were covered off....all other returns are not mandated by anyone....nice double talk though.

And yes, ID IS required for a return.....it's posted on several retailers return policies.....nice try though. Black is White reduces your already sad credibility to nothing more than foot stomping.....go ask Mommy for a cookie. Lol.

Not really relevant to collecting personal infomation.

See these links for the evidence that retailer has to provide a refund, or (if the customer prefers) and exchange.

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

What have the CTers been able to show?

A link to a BBB site that references out of date legislation. Nothing else but wishful thinking.

And discussions of warranties? A 'red herring' to distract consumers from the laws on defective items the obligations of the retailer.

Nice try though!

Unregistered said:

Not really relevant to collecting personal infomation.

See these links for the evidence that retailer has to provide a refund, or (if the customer prefers) and exchange.

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

What have the CTers been able to show?

A link to a BBB site that references out of date legislation. Nothing else but wishful thinking.

And discussions of warranties? A 'red herring' to distract consumers from the laws on defective items the obligations of the retailer.

Nice try though!

Click to expand...

Where was it that the BBB printed a retraction for their article? I'm sure you've contacted them about their error....no?
I wonder why not. Tsk, Tsk faker advocate....so easy to disprove. Perhaps litigator wife can send off a sternly written letter to the BBB for their error....or perhaps, a real advocate can substantiate your claim. No? Not even one?
Ouch!

Be sure to check out all the proof offered here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

And of course here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

You're welcome!

Unregistered said:

Be sure to check out all the proof offered here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...pair-only-warranty-no-refund-no-exchange.html

And of course here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

You're welcome!

Click to expand...

Where was it that the BBB printed a retraction for their article? I'm sure you've contacted them about their error....no?
I wonder why not. Tsk, Tsk faker advocate....so easy to disprove. Perhaps litigator wife can send off a sternly written letter to the BBB for their error....or perhaps, a real advocate can substantiate your claim. No? Not even one?

Just reiterating.....feel free to answer.....LOL!

Angry CT Guy sure does get ticked off a lot.

It just spills over into all kinds of unrelated threads.

Can't blame him for being angry - he represents such a crappy company, after all.

Unregistered said:

Angry CT Guy sure does get ticked off a lot.

It just spills over into all kinds of unrelated threads.

Can't blame him for being angry - he represents such a crappy company, after all.

Click to expand...

So, nothing relevant to add?

Not surprised, same as most of your posts.

Got even ONE yet?

Nope....not even from litigator wife.....ouch!

Hilarious!

Why is Angry CT Guy so angry?

Is it because his beloved company keeps getting caught collecting more data then they are supposed to?

Or is it because so many people read this site about how much his beloved store sucks?

Must be pretty frustrating to have your failings displayed so publicly, day after day.

Maybe ranting on this site is a form of therapy for Angry CT guy. Glad Canada has gun control!

Unregistered said:

Why is Angry CT Guy so angry?

Is it because his beloved company keeps getting caught collecting more data then they are supposed to?

Or is it because so many people read this site about how much his beloved store sucks?

Must be pretty frustrating to have your failings displayed so publicly, day after day.

Maybe ranting on this site is a form of therapy for Angry CT guy. Glad Canada has gun control!

Click to expand...

Caught collecting data? LOL
I don't ever recall CT being disciplined or told to change our policies on collecting name phone number and address.
Just thought i'd point out that when an automobile comes in for service, we collect the same information. Name phone number and address for your work order. I suppose the service manager is stealing the information in collusion with the returns clerk? lol
Funny thing is, when my Benz goes in for warranty at the Stealership, they collect my name phone number and address. Damn Germans, they are stealing my info

Unregistered said:

Why is Angry CT Guy so angry?

Is it because his beloved company keeps getting caught collecting more data then they are supposed to?

Or is it because so many people read this site about how much his beloved store sucks?

Must be pretty frustrating to have your failings displayed so publicly, day after day.

Maybe ranting on this site is a form of therapy for Angry CT guy. Glad Canada has gun control!

Click to expand...

Really? Caught collecting more data than supposed to? Got even one example, just one that it's true? No?
Same as illegal return policy I guess. Perhaps litigator wife can fight that battle for you.....or maybe you are just lying yet again, mr. Zero credibility faker advocate. Tsk, Tsk.