How do you rate 7200 Market Crossing, Burnaby, BC store?

[Admin]

Rate this Canadian Tire store?

Please vote on the above poll.

• You may select multiple choices.
• Only choose the options that apply.
• Try to be honest.

Post other opinions and thought on this particular store below.

 

[Guest-0128]

Some of the employees lack "thinking" and common sense skills. I'm specifically referring to their Customer Service staff counter. There's also inconsistent info given out.

In addition, a few employees don't give a hoot about trying to get you in for servicing or tire alignment or installation.

 

[Guest-0128]

BTW, apparently there this same owner who owns this location also owns another CT location in town. Any one know which location is shared by the same owner or would only corporate know?

 

[Guest-0148]

I found that this Canadian Tire seems much nicer than the Vancouver stores, the staff don't seem as up tight. I like shopping there when I need to. The auto service is okay, just avoid Tim if you can (very slow) but other than that a nice place to go if you have to!

 

[Guest-0148]

This store has a different owner, the vancouver stores (both of them) are owned by two brothers.The Burnaby store is owned and operated by a local guy.

 

[KaZAM]

Not a bad store, nice people and bright, clean place to shop. Compared to the Dump in Vancouver (Cambie), anything is better! The staff seem to care about the store and the people.

 

[Medic]

Just had may van serviced ath the burnaby location. Pricing was alright, the staff was very nice and polite. Ross and Irvin seem to care about what you need. I know alot of people wine about "Crappy Tire" but this place is a good place to shop. This is so different than the surrey stores (yuk!)

 

[Guest-0522]

Generally this store is clean and well organised. Stock is limited on sale items (better go real early). They have far too few employees on the floor that at times I just give up and leave. If you do manage to find a floor employee they are courteous and try their best to help. Cashiers are friendly and the wait is not too long.

The return desk is a different case. There could be 20 people waiting and at most they will have just two people working. The returns staff are not pleasant to deal with. I once bought a tool set that was on sale and it went on sale a month later for much less. I was told the price match policy is one week but products can be returned up to 3 months. So I asked her if she was going to make me buy the same item again, go home to get the first purchased item, and return it for a refund? She said yes. Sigh. I purchased the same item again, went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund. I live really close so I was back in about 15 minutes. She questioned me whether this was the original item purchased a month ago. I said what difference does it make - same item unopened with receipt. She advised me that it will be fraud to return an item even if it was the same item with a different receipt. She asked the advice of her co-worker and she said it was up to her. She did eventually reluctantly give me a refund. Needless to say I was not feeling good with the "customer service" I received.

Before the big box stores they have now the old smaller stores would give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CT Challenger]

If you were going to make the trip all the way home for the item, you could have returned the first (expensive) one first, and then bought the second (cheap) one.

That would have been better for you, since you'd have been sure they were going to get let you return the first/expensive one, which isn't at all guaranteed. The way you did it, you could have been stuck with two of them.

Also, by returning the first/expensive one right away, and then purchasing the second/cheap one, there would be no reason for anyone to think you were doing anything strange.

That doesn't mean that a suspicious, paranoid clerk wouldn't still get all flustered by it. That's their nature.

Of course, in either case, the store wasn't going to lose anything. No loss if you returned the first/expensive one, and then bought the second/cheap one. And also, no loss to the store if you'd bought the second/cheap one, and then returned the first/expensive one (as you did).

No loss to the store, no fraud.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

If you were going to make the trip all the way home for the item, you could have returned the first (expensive) one first, and then bought the second (cheap) one.

That would have been better for you, since you'd have been sure they were going to get let you return the first/expensive one, which isn't at all guaranteed. The way you did it, you could have been stuck with two of them.

Also, by returning the first/expensive one right away, and then purchasing the second/cheap one, there would be no reason for anyone to think you were doing anything strange.

That doesn't mean that a suspicious, paranoid clerk wouldn't still get all flustered by it. That's their nature.

Of course, in either case, the store wasn't going to lose anything. No loss if you returned the first/expensive one, and then bought the second/cheap one. And also, no loss to the store if you'd bought the second/cheap one, and then returned the first/expensive one (as you did).

No loss to the store, no fraud.

Lmao....and people wonder why they are questioned at the returns desk. Buying an item and returning it with an old receipt is fraud, plain and simple. Get caught and pay the consequences. Who do you think is smarter? The ones that try it, or the owners that see that shit day in and day out? Like I said, don't get caught....all thieves must pay.

 

[CT Challenger]

fraud?

how so?

 

[Angry CT Guy]

fraud?

how so?

You're trying to use an old receipt on a newly purchased item to return it for money your not entitled to. That's fraud. Give your head a shake.

 

[Guest-0477]

You're trying to use an old receipt on a newly purchased item to return it for money your not entitled to. That's fraud. Give your head a shake.

None of that is true!

How come you CT people are so paranoid?

You see 'fraud' in ordinary transactions - very delusional.

The poster wrote that they, "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund."

Nobody suggested they do otherwise - just that they do this BEFORE purchasing a second one at a lower price - partly to avoid the hysteria of CT people like you.

It's people like you who should be doing the head-shaking.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

None of that is true!

How come you CT people are so paranoid?

You see 'fraud' in ordinary transactions - very delusional.

The poster wrote that they, "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund."

Nobody suggested they do otherwise - just that they do this BEFORE purchasing a second one at a lower price - partly to avoid the hysteria of CT people like you.

It's people like you who should be doing the head-shaking.

She questioned me whether this was the original item purchased a month ago. I said what difference does it make - same item unopened with receipt

Goober, THAT'S the difference....returning the just bought item with his old receipt is FRAUD. The reason he sees no difference is because of his lack of morals.

 

[Guest-0477]

Pointless insults aren't going to change the fact that the customer was right, the clerk was wrong, and the CT person posting here is also wrong.

The customer did not return the "just bought item with his old receipt". They wrote that they "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund". Pretty clear, if you just read what was written.

When asked if "this was the original item purchased a month ago.", the customer was right when they said, "what difference does it make - same item unopened with receipt". There is no difference. Anyway, the customer was returning the old item (see above).

The clerk was also wrong to say "it will be fraud to return an item even if it was the same item with a different receipt." There would be no difference at all. No lose to the store if it was the identical unopened one from a month ago, or the identical unopened one from that day.

No difference, no loss, and therefore no fraud. Anyone who works at the returns desk should know that, and not have given the customer a hard time.

So, the clerk didn't know what they were talking about, and made a big deal over nothing, annoying a once-loyal customer in the process.

It has also sparked a debate here with other CT people who also don't know what they are talking about. The person who has been claiming that this is 'fraud' and 'theft' should also know better. Check out the Criminal Code before posting such nonsense. A little research goes a long way.

(Unless you are just being deliberately difficult - but it just makes CT look like a bunch of paranoid ding-bats).

The 'take-away' for customers: realize that you are dealing with people who don't know what they are talking about. Only give straight-forward answers to their pointless questions. Just say, "yes, this is the one I bought a month ago". Trying to use sarcasm or logic will just baffle them and make them suspicious.

Or, better yet, shop someplace where they have better customer service. Just about anywhere will be better.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Pointless insults aren't going to change the fact that the customer was right, the clerk was wrong, and the CT person posting here is also wrong.

The customer did not return the "just bought item with his old receipt". They wrote that they "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund". Pretty clear, if you just read what was written.

When asked if "this was the original item purchased a month ago.", the customer was right when they said, "what difference does it make - same item unopened with receipt". There is no difference. Anyway, the customer was returning the old item (see above).

The clerk was also wrong to say "it will be fraud to return an item even if it was the same item with a different receipt." There would be no difference at all. No lose to the store if it was the identical unopened one from a month ago, or the identical unopened one from that day.

No difference, no loss, and therefore no fraud. Anyone who works at the returns desk should know that, and not have given the customer a hard time.

So, the clerk didn't know what they were talking about, and made a big deal over nothing, annoying a once-loyal customer in the process.

It has also sparked a debate here with other CT people who also don't know what they are talking about. The person who has been claiming that this is 'fraud' and 'theft' should also know better. Check out the Criminal Code before posting such nonsense. A little research goes a long way.

(Unless you are just being deliberately difficult - but it just makes CT look like a bunch of paranoid ding-bats).

The 'take-away' for customers: realize that you are dealing with people who don't know what they are talking about. Only give straight-forward answers to their pointless questions. Just say, "yes, this is the one I bought a month ago". Trying to use sarcasm or logic will just baffle them and make them suspicious.

Or, better yet, shop someplace where they have better customer service. Just about anywhere will be better.

Faker advocate obviously thinks it's ok to defraud retailers for $$ that the customer is not entitled to. They should probably read up on what fraud is....deliberately deceiving (previous receipt used on newer, less expensively purchased product) to obtain cash. No one put a gun to their head and made them buy the item the month before. Price paid, goods accepted. Now that it is on for cheaper, they want the difference back....it doesn't work that way. Some stores offer a week or two's grace, but far too many people try this kind of bullshit after that grace period. If you want something on sale, then wait for it to go on sale....it may happen, it may not....but if you try to deceive the store after your buyer's remorse....I'll nail you to the wall, every time.

 

[CT Challenger]

Faker advocate obviously thinks it's ok to defraud retailers for $$ that the customer is not entitled to. They should probably read up on what fraud is....deliberately deceiving (previous receipt used on newer, less expensively purchased product) to obtain cash. No one put a gun to their head and made them buy the item the month before. Price paid, goods accepted. Now that it is on for cheaper, they want the difference back....it doesn't work that way. Some stores offer a week or two's grace, but far too many people try this kind of bullshit after that grace period. If you want something on sale, then wait for it to go on sale....it may happen, it may not....but if you try to deceive the store after your buyer's remorse....I'll nail you to the wall, every time.

frankly you seem pretty confused

whos the advocate?

and how come a customer isnt entitled to a refund within 90 days for an unopened item?

you seem to be the only one writing about using a different receipt

yeah youre very confused i think

you should read the story again - get your facts straight

nobody deceived the store so no fraud

its the law

 

[Angry CT Guy]

It's faker advocates and their "suggestion" that fraud is ok that ruins it for the honest customer. Luckily, most people abhor the kind of behavior faker advocates endorse.

 

[CT Challenger]

It's faker advocates and their "suggestion" that fraud is ok that ruins it for the honest customer. Luckily, most people abhor the kind of behavior faker advocates endorse.

nobody said fraud is ok

but if the store doesn't lose anything then its not fraud

what is it with these ct people where they see 'fraud' inordinary transactions?

we read about it all the time on this site

now we have another story from a customer who was mis-informed by a returns clerk

the customer went all the way home to get the original item & return it, and still they were suspected of 'fraud' in a situation where no fraud could have taken place

now we have some misguided ct person posting here claming that they've gotten convictions in cases like this

its simply absurd

are there any links to the criminal code to back up this wild theory? no

are there ank links to news stories for convictions like this? now

because it's simply a bunch of crap

 

[Angry CT Guy]

nobody said fraud is ok

but if the store doesn't lose anything then its not fraud

what is it with these ct people where they see 'fraud' inordinary transactions?

we read about it all the time on this site

now we have another story from a customer who was mis-informed by a returns clerk

the customer went all the way home to get the original item & return it, and still they were suspected of 'fraud' in a situation where no fraud could have taken place

now we have some misguided ct person posting here claming that they've gotten convictions in cases like this

its simply absurd

are there any links to the criminal code to back up this wild theory? no

are there ank links to news stories for convictions like this? now

because it's simply a bunch of crap

Recognizing Return Fraud - Signs of Fraudulent Activity in Retail

Or

Fraud Definition

Or we can just take the faker advocates opinion as to what constitutes fraud.....given his lack of education and credibility on many subjects, it's just the ranting and ravings of a child.
Don't forget to donate....button at the top and they even take PayPal in U.S. dollars.