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

Unregistered said:

Recognizing Return Fraud - Signs of Fraudulent Activity in Retail

Or

Fraud Definition

Click to expand...

It's important to remember that the customer didn't return one item with the receipt from another - you are still wrong about that.

Thanks for the interesting links, though.

But there's nothing in there about it being 'fraud' to return an unopened item that was purchased recently with the receipt from an item that was purchased earlier. Sorry.

It is interesting how all the examples they gave involve a loss to the store - something that won't happen in the hypothetical case you are describing.

It's good to see you've finally taken the time to post an actual definition of "fraud", instead of your own "deception - fraud" B.S.

You may have noted that someone has to get something they aren't entitled to.

According to your "theory", what would a person gain (and the store lose), if the newer, unopened item was returned instead of the older, unopened item?

Just curious if you have any basis at all for your "theory" and "opinion".

Also, we're still waiting for all those criminal cases, for all those people you wrote were convicted of fraud for this. Any time soon would be fine.

So, do you have anything that backs up your claim that it's somehow "fraud" and "theft" to returning an older, unopened item with the receipt from a newer purchase?

(Not that anyone we're discussing has every said they did that!)

Or, would you like to simply admit that you are wrong? Again, that is.

Unregistered said:

It's important to remember that the customer didn't return one item with the receipt from another - you are still wrong about that.

Thanks for the interesting links, though.

But there's nothing in there about it being 'fraud' to return an unopened item that was purchased recently with the receipt from an item that was purchased earlier. Sorry.

It is interesting how all the examples they gave involve a loss to the store - something that won't happen in the hypothetical case you are describing.

It's good to see you've finally taken the time to post an actual definition of "fraud", instead of your own "deception - fraud" B.S.

You may have noted that someone has to get something they aren't entitled to.

According to your "theory", what would a person gain (and the store lose), if the newer, unopened item was returned instead of the older, unopened item?

Just curious if you have any basis at all for your "theory" and "opinion".

Also, we're still waiting for all those criminal cases, for all those people you wrote were convicted of fraud for this. Any time soon would be fine.

So, do you have anything that backs up your claim that it's somehow "fraud" and "theft" to returning an older, unopened item with the receipt from a newer purchase?

(Not that anyone we're discussing has every said they did that!)

Or, would you like to simply admit that you are wrong? Again, that is.

Click to expand...

You're sure he didn't return the newer item with an old receipt? You were there? He asked what difference it would be for what reason? Did he think it was not fraud (as you support)?
Fraud Definition
Try lying (saying the recently purchased item is the same one you bought a month ago)
Defrauding me of money. You purchase an item for $100.00. A month later you see it is on sale for $50.00, so you buy it and use your old receipt to return it for $100.00, thus cheating me out of $50.00. Yes, fraud it is and the low moral character of a faker advocate doesn't change it. People like faker advocate who see nothing wrong with cheating retailers is why the honest person gets questioned and pays more. Luckily, the vast majority of people aren't losers like the faker advocate.....so easy to disprove each and every day. And don't forget to donate.....they take PayPal in U.S. Dollars.....LMAO!

It's all about greedy CT people.

If you bought something for $100, they don't want you to return it - they want to keep your $100.

Say an innocent customer tries to use the store's own policy to return an unopened items within 90 days.

They don't like that, so they try and trick they can think of to keep the customer's money.

For instance, they invent this bogus story about switched receipts, so that they'll have an excuse to refuse the refund.

The customer said that's what happened in the store, and now we see a CT person saying that again here.

Just another excuse to refuse a legitimate refund.

Besides, none of it really matters.

If the customer really did do things they way they described it here, then they paid $50 for one unopened item.

But if the customer really did as the CT person keeps claiming, then they paid $50 for one unopened item.

The customer wouldn't have gained anything by switching the receipts, and the store wouldn't have lost anything by the customer switching the reciepts.

No loss to the store = no fraud.

It's the law - yet another one that the CT person doesn't seem to like. Too bad for them.

The customer didn't switch the receipts or the items. That's just something the CT person made up.

But even if they did, the customer wouldn't be getting anything extra from the store that way. It's clear the CT person is just ignoring that simple fact.

If the customer doesn't get anything extra from the store, that means there's no fraud. The law is clear, but the CT person is pretending that's not true.

The CT person simply makes stuff up, as an excuse to keep customer's refunds. Simple greed, as usual.

Actually let me tell you what it's REALLY about.
Customers being honest, and a business being able to run sales terms that have limits, and not unlimited opportunity for customers.

If every customer leverages the 90 day return policy to return and rebuy at a discounted rate, that puts EVERY item that's on sale for a 7 day period in the flyer, on sale for 3 full months. That's 1/4 of the year. That's why most stores operate in the range of 7-14 days to honour the sale price from previous or upcoming flyers.

No other retailer, grocer or store will honour sale prices for 3 months, why should we?
Because with these scenarios that;s EXACTLY what you're cheating the system to do

And that's why it's fraud, plain and simple. Trying to deceive the store to gain money they aren't entitled too. Faker advocate is trying to set the rules to his own low moral standards...imagine if you could do that...wouldn't need lawyers, courts or law enforcement...lol....what a loser.

Unregistered said:

Actually let me tell you what it's REALLY about.
Customers being honest, and a business being able to run sales terms that have limits, and not unlimited opportunity for customers.

If every customer leverages the 90 day return policy to return and rebuy at a discounted rate, that puts EVERY item that's on sale for a 7 day period in the flyer, on sale for 3 full months. That's 1/4 of the year. That's why most stores operate in the range of 7-14 days to honour the sale price from previous or upcoming flyers.

No other retailer, grocer or store will honour sale prices for 3 months, why should we?
Because with these scenarios that;s EXACTLY what you're cheating the system to do

Click to expand...

Ah, so it turns out it’s not about fraud at all, or deception or even cheating. Not even about customers maybe getting something they aren’t entitled to.

It’s so good that we’ve gotten this resolved … but it sure took a while, LOL!

No, it turns out that it’s really just about smart customers, who’ve figured out how to work honestly within CT’s own polices, to get a ‘price adjustment’ for up to 90 days.

Clearly that’s something the CT person doesn't like! Ha-ha!

Obviously there's no "cheating", "deception" or "fraud" in returning an item that's still “in its original condition and packaging”.

No, the false accusations are simply CT whining, because they are unhappy about customers out-smarting them on their own policies, LMAO!!

Even though CT’s return policy on unwanted goods is the worst among major Canadian retailers, they still think it’s too lenient - incredible!

So, what is CT’s response, when a smart customer figures out this work-around?

Do they gracefully admit that the customer is following all the rules? Of course not.

Do they decide that it’s time to update their own crappy policy? Nope, not that either.

Instead, they label this completely honest approach as “cheating”, “deception”, and go on to falsely accuse innocent customers of “fraud” and of having “low moral standards”.

We see this time and time again. In the stores, and on this site.

So typical of CT to blame someone else for all the problems they created for themselves, then whine about it.

Unregistered said:

Ah, so it turns out it’s not about fraud at all, or deception or even cheating. Not even about customers maybe getting something they aren’t entitled to.

It’s so good that we’ve gotten this resolved … but it sure took a while, LOL!

No, it turns out that it’s really just about smart customers, who’ve figured out how to work honestly within CT’s own polices, to get a ‘price adjustment’ for up to 90 days.

Clearly that’s something the CT person doesn't like! Ha-ha!

Obviously there's no "cheating", "deception" or "fraud" in returning an item that's still “in its original condition and packaging”.

No, the false accusations are simply CT whining, because they are unhappy about customers out-smarting them on their own policies, LMAO!!

Even though CT’s return policy on unwanted goods is the worst among major Canadian retailers, they still think it’s too lenient - incredible!

So, what is CT’s response, when a smart customer figures out this work-around?

Do they gracefully admit that the customer is following all the rules? Of course not.

Do they decide that it’s time to update their own crappy policy? Nope, not that either.

Instead, they label this completely honest approach as “cheating”, “deception”, and go on to falsely accuse innocent customers of “fraud” and of having “low moral standards”.

We see this time and time again. In the stores, and on this site.

So typical of CT to blame someone else for all the problems they created for themselves, then whine about it.

Click to expand...

Lmao....of course faker advocate thinks this isn't fraud, that's why he's a FAKER advocate. No real advocate states that you should defraud stores, lie to them, cheat them with what you think is a loop hole.....No, honest people don't even think like that, just faker advocate and his loser mentality. Why do businesses change the way they have done business?... just read faker's last post....losers like that cost us all money, one way or another.
Luckily, he is the vast minority and most people not only have a conscience, but show their public disdain for people like faker on multiple blogs and posts. They just don't like his kind.

CT has a policy that allows a customer to return unwanted items within 90 days, provided that the item is "in its original condition and packaging". This can be found here:

Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire

This is a routine transaction, that takes place every day. Stores provide it, and customers use it. In fact, most stores have even more generous policies than CT does.

Smart customers have realized that they are well within their rights to avail themselves of this policy, and return items for which they paid full price (provided that the item is "in its original condition and packaging"). They are then free to buy the same item at the sale price, if it's available.

Are these customers telling a "lie"? No - they are returning the original item with the original receipt, as they are allowed to do, and there's no dishonesty involved.

Are they trying to "cheat" the store? No - they are following the policies of the store. If the store didn't like it, the store could change the policy, but they have so far chosen not to (although they already have the worst policies of any major retailer!)

Is this a "fraud"? No, it's a customer returning at item that they no longer want. Can I have my refund please? Thank you!

Customers can, of course, understand why the owners of the "we've got your money, now f-off" store would not be happy about this. After all, it makes it harder for them to achieve their goal of becoming "stinking rich".

But being unhappy about your own store's policies is no reason to tell lies about people. To falsely accuse them. To say bad things about them that aren't true.

No, if the CT owners aren't happy about their own policies, they should change them.

But they shouldn't take out their mis-directed hostility on the customers who are honestly following the rules that CT has created for them.

Where I come from, that's called "being a cry baby".

(But it IS fun to listen to them squeal ...)

I guess that is why they won't take back used items. Just sayin'

I wonder how many Canadians returned items in the "original condition and packaging" today.

According to the CT'er, every single one of them committed "fraud", but somehow the stores all let this happen.

Hard to believe any of their rantings anymore ...

Those items that you are describing in this example are not unwanted items. You're returning them and re-buying them. That makes it a wanted item.

This has zero to do with the returning of an unwanted item. It has everything to do with using a policy to cheat the sales flyer and get money back that you're not entitled to.
Way to go CT-Hater, you're showing exactly what this site is all about. Being a dishonest consumer for the purpose of gain. that should help your "cause" gain steam

You're a proven liar, a proven cheat and that's not a consumer advocate.

Unregistered said:

Those items that you are describing in this example are not unwanted items. You're returning them and re-buying them. That makes it a wanted item.

This has zero to do with the returning of an unwanted item. It has everything to do with using a policy to cheat the sales flyer and get money back that you're not entitled to.
Way to go CT-Hater, you're showing exactly what this site is all about. Being a dishonest consumer for the purpose of gain. that should help your "cause" gain steam

You're a proven liar, a proven cheat and that's not a consumer advocate.

Click to expand...

Another furious outburst from the Angry CT Guy. I can just picture the mouth-foam flying.

The CT policy (Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire) doesn't even say it has to be "unwanted".

No, "Unwanted" is just a term people have been using to distiguish these from defective or unfit items. So, the argument about it being "wanted" has no relevance. Nice try, though. I don't think it will be enough to discourage customers who want to use the policy.

In fact, the site just says, "To return an item for exchange or refund, bring it to any Canadian Tire store within 90 days, in its original condition and packaging, with your receipt and issue of Canadian Tire 'Money'".

Nothing on there about why the customer wants to return it, what else they might do while in the store, where they are going for lunch, your favourite colour, or other irrelevant questions. Sorry!

This isn't "cheating". It's returning an item in accordance with CT's official policy. I realize the Angry CT Guy doesn't like that, and that it makes them blind with rage, but they really should learn some restraint. False accusations are so ... unnecessary.

There isn't anything dishonest going on, either. "I'd like to return this, please. It's in its original condition and packaging. Here's my debit card. Thank you!" Happens every day, in other stores, too.

And who on this site is a "a proven liar, a proven cheat"?

I'd be interested in seeing the "proof".

Oh, wait. There isn't any, LOL.

That must be very frustrating. Must be why the Angry CT Guy is so Angry all the time.

Who said you couldn't return an item, unopened or unused within 90 days....30 for electronics? No one....liar!
The issue was repurchasing an item that is on sale (because you paid full price previously) and then lying and using your old receipt to return the newly purchased item. It's fraud and faker advocate can spin it anyway he wants, doesn't change the fact it's fraud and doesn't change that after all this time and being so disproven in all the lies he tells, all he can do now is show his true colours of being a liar and a cheat.
Makes me wonder if his hate for CT was because he got caught at a store for lying or cheating and they banned him for life.....sure does make you wonder.

The impotent raging of Angry CT Guy continues.

It's quite amusing, actually.

Nothing seems to get his blood a-boilin' like consumers sharing tips on how to get a refund, all within CT's own policies.

So, how does Angry CT Guy react? Besides getting angry, I mean? By telling lies, of course - nothing new there, LOL.

There's quite a few of them packing into their posts, if you care to pick through them.

Lies about what consumers wrote.

Lies about the law, naturally.

Lies about what consumers have done.

If you go back to the original post (https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/c...arket-crossing-burnaby-bc-store.html#post4702), you'll see that the customer wrote that they "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund".

Since then, there have been numerous claims that this is "cheating" and even "fraud". None of which is true, by the way.

There was also some discussion about returning an old, unopened item with the receipt from a new one. Angry CT Guy snarled that this was (big surprise!) "fraud", but has completely failed to show how this is true. Also, no back-up on the claim of many "convictions" for exactly this type of transaction.

Oh, and the further muddy the waters, various CT people have chimed in with stuff about returning used items, or opening boxes in stores. Nothing really relevant, so don't be distracted!

Can a customer bring an unopened item and the original receipt for a refund within 90 days? Of course. Nobody has said otherwise.

Is this "cheating", "dishonesty" or "fraud"? The Angry CT Guy keeps shrieking that it is, but that's totally untrue.

And will the Angry CT Guy get angry if a customer decides to re-buy the item at the sale price? LMAO! It sure is fun to watch!

Yes, one has to pay close attention when dealing with Angry CT Guy - the truth never lasts too long.

A faker advocate telling the truth and ignoring any fact is normal on this site. That's why DavidLer now posts under unregistered.
Irrelevant and not to unique is the faker advocate....cheaters and liars have made retailers work even harder to protect their interests. Supporting fraud is just the latest admission of faker advocate, but it's nothing new.
Real consumer advocates, government ministries, BBB's, or even the law profession have never even once advocated what faker advocate has.....that's why he's a faker...and a liar and cheat as well, apparently.
Luckily, most people aren't like him.....most people abhor his thought process.....most people know he's a loser.

Wow, Mr. Angry CT Guy seems to be getting more and more angry!

Maybe he's mad because he has to "work even harder"?

Nah, it's all about his own store's policies that allow customers to get things cheaper. Well, those are the store's rules - "Too bad, so sad"!

Hard not to notice that Angry CT Guy has no real facts to offer. That's because they are all against him, LOL! Must be why he's so spittin' mad!

He sure isn't running out of lies or insults, though.

That's OK. As long as customer remember: the store's policy says you can return an unopened item for up to 90 days.

Call it an "unwanted item" or a "change of mind return", if you like that better. Whatever. Maybe you decided it was just too darn expensive. Whatever the reason, just take it on back for a refund.

Hey, look! It's on sale today, for 50% off! At those attractive, low-low, loss-leader, door-crasher prices, maybe you'll want it again! Woo-hoo! Bring on the savings!

Any 'fraud' involved? Nope.

Cheating? Lying? Nope and nope.

And then there's the hypothetical case of someone who has has an identical, unopened item at home .... still no proof that it's "fraud" to return a newer, identical, unopened item with the old receipt. I think that's making Angry CT Guy really made, too. Maybe if he wants to convince us it's "fraud", he could find some examples of all these "convictions" he wrote about?

Yeah, watch out for that Angry CT Guy. He sounds a little .... rabid.

Interesting theory about it being "fraud" to use an old receipt to return a newly purchased item.

So, where are all the convictions that the Angry CT Guy wrote about?

Still no examples of any fraud convictions, where a customer used the "90 day policy" to return the item they'd previously bought, with the proper receipt? Well, that one was kind of a stretch, when the Angry CT Guy blurted out that it was "fraud".

How about the easier case, where a customer has the original, unopened item at home, but to save a trip, returns an identical item that they just bought using the old receipt? Where are the examples of all the convictions that were claimed? How did CT convince a judge that the store suffered a financial loss, when customer was entitled all along to a refund on the original, unopened item?

Or how about this case: the customer had used the original item, and instead "re-bought" an unopened one, and returned that, instead of the original. How did CT produce evidence that the customer had opened the original, and therefore wasn't entitled to a refund? Did CT get a search warrant, and conduct a search of the customer's house? In any case, where are the examples of convictions in these cases? We were told there were a lot of them ...

And where are all these so-called "lies" told by consumers on this site? Haven't really seen any details or the proof that would be required.

Maybe Angry CT Guy just can't help but lie, when he gets all worked up, when customers bring things back for the refunds they are entitled to. And maybe he got a little over-zealous, and invented a few facts here and there. We should wait for the evidence to be presented before making up our minds ...

Went to this store last week, saw how rude the staff talk to a customer, I did not purchase the item I came in for. Do the staffs at CT know that this is a people business?

Thanks for posting, Raindrop.

I've heard many CT people respond to complaints by saying (basically), "if you don't like it, shop somewhere else. You'll be back".

By continuing to shop there, customers are 'enabling' them to get away with poor service.