Returning Unwanted Goods - CT Has the Worst Policies

Unregistered said:
Dude, you got too much time on your hands. I think Zellers is nearly dead. At least in my town.
Click to expand...

The Angry CT Guy posted two links to Zellers policies.

Just clarifying for consumers how, even Zellers has better policies than Crappy Tire.

Along with Costco, Walmart and Home Depot.
 
Unregistered said:
The Angry CT Guy posted two links to Zellers policies.

Just clarifying for consumers how, even Zellers has better policies than Crappy Tire.

Along with Costco, Walmart and Home Depot.
Click to expand...

Really?

Lots of unopened and unused references. Lots of ID may be required for returns. From lots and lots of retailers. Typical no point post from a faker. Got that call into Ellen yet? Hilarious!
 
Unregistered said:
Really?

Lots of unopened and unused references. Lots of ID may be required for returns. From lots and lots of retailers. Typical no point post from a faker. Got that call into Ellen yet? Hilarious!
Click to expand...

Interesting opinions and theories. Too bad they don't stand up to scrutiny:

So, how do Zellers return policies compare to Crappy Tire’s, for unwanted/unsatisfactory items?

See Return Policy

Unopened/Sealed: Applies to “some” items, including digital media.

This is about the same as Crappy Tire, who require unopened/sealed for “ink cartridges, media, and memory cards, books, DVDs, CDs, mattresses and portable beds”. However, many stores also require unsatisfactory items to be “unopened” or in “sealed” packages, which is much worse than Zellers.

Unused/Original Condition: Not required.

Crappy Tire says, “in its original condition”, but the added in-store requirement for “unopened” means it must be “unused”, which is much worse than Zellers.

In Original Packaging: Not required.

Crappy Tire requires “in its original … packaging” for all products, which is much worse than Zellers.

Minimum Time: 30 days minimum (for electronics, seasonal items, and anything not paid for with an HBC credit card).

Crappy Tire allows only 30 days for electronics, so the minimum is the same as Zellers.

Maximum Time: 90 days, if paid for with an HBC credit card.

Crappy Tire’s maximum is 90 days, so this is the same as Zellers if the card is used.

Personal Information Required: Yes (Name, address, phone number. Photo ID “may also be required”).

This is the same as Crappy Tire.

Restocking Fee: “returned items may be subject to a restocking fee”

Crappy Tire’s site does not mention this, but some stores charge a fee for some items. So, the same as Zellers.

Other Limitations:
- None (nothing has to be “unused” or “unopened”.)

Other Benefits:
- Return periods increase to 90 days if paid for with an HBC credit card.


Summary:

- Zellers is better than Crappy Tire for allowing items to be returned that are opened, used, and not in original condition nor packaging.
- However, the time limit will be less (30 days instead of 90) if not purchased with an HBC credit card.
- If Crappy Tire insists on “unopened” for every item, then Zellers is much better.

- Overall: Zellers has better policies, but for a shorter time.

Note: this hasn’t been discussed before, but the Zellers site does not describe a “repair only”, “exchange only” or a “no return, no exchange” policy for any defective items, so, customers can get a refund for a defective item.
 
I love how you've made your own additions to the policies of CT, instead of comparing what's on the website to what's on the competitors website

eg. The restocking fee, listed on Zellers, not listed on CT. So you just say oh it's the same. LOL

No wonder nothing stands up to "scrutiny" you scrutinize these policies yourself, and make modifications so that they either match or are worse. Really, if you're going to play, play fair.
 
Interesting comments.

Of course, the whole point it to help consumers make informed decisions on where to shop.

Everything was above-board. Nothing was claimed to be on the web site, when it wasn't. Nothing was "modified", as was claimed.

And nothing that was on the web site was ignored.

Do you have anything that helps consumers make better choices?

Do you have any evidence that Crappy Tire never wants to charge a re-stocking fee?

Any evidence that Zellers always charges one?

Any evidence at all that would help consumers?

Or, is this just another case of 'sour grapes', where the Crappy People don't like consumes finding out the truth?
 
Restocking Fee: “returned items may be subject to a restocking fee”

Crappy Tire’s site does not mention this, but some stores charge a fee for some items. So, the same as Zellers.

********

You have conveniently added something there that is not contained anywhere in the CT policy. You even said so. Zellers states.
That's modified so that you can sway opinions your way

thats not above board, that's a lie!
 
Gee, there's stuff missing from the Crappy Tire crappy web site? What a big, shocking surprise, LOL!

So, consumers aren't supposed to share information that Crappy Tire deliberately hides by excluding it from their site?

And other stores, who are more honest and upfront about their policies, are supposed to look bad by comparison?

Well, it's not gonna work, Crappy Tire! You just come across as a bunch of deceiptful whiners, frankly.

Missing information includes:

- Stores may ask for a restocking fee, even for unopened packages.
- Stores may insist on "unopened" packages for every item, even if it is unused and in original condition.
- Some items are "exchange only", which really means, "no refund if it's defective" - but the site doesn't say that.
- Some items are "repair only",which really means, "no refund and no exchange if it's defective" - not nothing on the site.
- Some items are "no refund, no exchange, no repair if defective" - but there's nothing on the site about that, either.

There's also the statement, "Exceptions include but are not limited to the following", meaning consumers have to take each potential purchase to the Customer Service desk before buying, to see what the real policy is.

Every.

Single.

Item.

On every.

Single.

Shopping trip.

And when many ordinary consumers, unaware of what Crappy Tire has hidden from them, are unhappy about the crappy policy, they are told:

"You should have found out about the policy before you bought it".

Nice cover-up job, Crappy People!

Pretty bold of you, to complain about consumers who post the truth about the policies your are trying to hide!
 
Unregistered said:
You have conveniently added something there that is not contained anywhere in the CT policy. You even said so. Zellers states.
That's modified so that you can sway opinions your way

thats not above board, that's a lie!
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's a lie to say "some stores charge a fee for some items"?

Really?

No Crappy Tire store has ever charged a restocking fee?

What about all consumers who have reported these fees, on this site and many others?

What about reports in the media?

What about the Crappy People who have already admitted it?

Are they all liars too?

Get real ..... and get honest about your policies.

Instead of calling people liars when they tell the truth.

Geez ....
 
I am far from upset about anything yo post on here. All of your personal efforts on here have zero impact on me, my store, my staff and my customers. Really the only people you're "educating" are a couple of other already pissed off consumers who hate Canadian Tire.

The only items that would commonly be charged a restock fee would be special order auto parts. If something else is being charged, I don't believe for regular daily stocked items at stores they should be.

However, the point is this...and it takes directly from your points.

According to your theory, we should add whatever we want to Walmart, Home Hardware, Lowe's etc...
because at some point, some store, somewhere in the country has charged a restocking fee for an item.
Even though it's not posted, it has happened before so they are not being up front and honest with their customers.
See how ridiculous that might seem? Well that's what you just did with Canadian Tire.

Of course I am not surprised by this as you have gone a step further and added your own lines of clarification to Government rules such as CPA & SGA. You know, items that got missed in the last revision like, it is illegal to repair an item under warranty, or it's a customers choice what they want done with an item under warranty.

I should check with all of my local police buddies, I wonder if we can just add random lines in to the laws and bylaws of this town.
 
Well that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Faker advocate believes that he should be able to dictate what policies he wants and doesn't. Of course, he doesn't own a business or mention any retailer that has an even more stringent return policy (take Apple as an example). Yep, he can't even be bothered to contact one of a myriad of legitimate consumer advocacy groups, media, or BBB to substantiate his ridiculous claims. Now, I wonder why that is?
Left unchallenged, I can only imagine what he'd spin next. Can't wait for the next booze filled rant! LOL!
 

CT dealers can't stand being busted on more lies. How they conveniently ignore and deny the existence consumer protection acts across the land, and your rights claiming that what they're doing with refunds isn't illegal. Much like what they were claiming wasn't illegal with the privacy laws when they were taking private information from the customers government ID. That is until somebody put their foot down and filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, who concluded that CT was breaking the law!!!

So there you have it. It's not illegal in CT's eyes until somebody takes them to court, sues them on the existing consumer legislation and wins. Until then they'll conveniently ignore those laws like they did with the Privacy Act.

Check the appropriate threads. Plenty of FACTs linked to the Consumer protection act and legal opinions from noted law firms.

Much more reliable than CT opinions who can't substantiate any claims.
 
Unregistered said:
The only items that would commonly be charged a restock fee would be special order auto parts.
Click to expand...

Really?

Crappy Tire really only charges restocking fees on 'special order auto parts, huh?

Let's have a look-see around this site, for what customers are reporting:

12-16-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/p...rn-policy-hide-employee-theft-7.html#post2547 - an off-the-shelf air filter.

12-17-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/p...rn-policy-hide-employee-theft-7.html#post2548 - 'outrageous' fees for 'perfectly good items'.

12-17-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/p...rn-policy-hide-employee-theft-7.html#post2550 - customer was charged a fee, but got it refunded.

12-18-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/p...rn-policy-hide-employee-theft-7.html#post2562 - $120 fee on an unused snow-blower. Not exactly a "special order auto part".

3-24-2011: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...rranty-no-refund-no-exchange-10.html#post3021 - everybody's favourite: a dead-out-of-the-box pressure washer.

Hmm ... another Crappy Tire lie is exposed.

Unregistered said:
According to your theory, we should add whatever we want to Walmart, Home Hardware, Lowe's etc...
Click to expand...

Really?

You have evidence that Walmart routinely charges restocking fees on regular items? I did some searches, but didn't find anything.

How about Costco Canada? Do you think they are like Crappy Tire, too, and charge restocking fees for non-custom items, without saying so on their web site?

How about Home Depot Canada? Even if it's not a 'special order', do you think they try to 'pull a Crappy Tire', and charge a restocking fee? Where's your evidence?

We'll give you a few minutes to pull up those references of yours.

Be sure to get back to us on that!
 
The only items that would commonly be charged a restock fee would be special order auto parts. If something else is being charged, I don't believe for regular daily stocked items at stores they should be.
Click to expand...

Nice try buddy, try using the whole statement not just one you can dice up to twist my words.
That's what I said above. the second part of which is that if a store is charging restocking fees for off the shelf items, i don't blieve they should be. They absolutely have the right to, but I don't think it's right.

Do you really think lying to your fellow 'consumers' and only telling half truths is earning trust? lol
 

No need to lie as the FACTS are usually on our side, unlike you crappy tire dealer, who usually insult and bully the customer for voicing complaints on service issues and returns. The links to bad customer experiences with restocking fees tells a more complete picture than you ever could, despite what you may think is right or wrong with what your Crappy Tire buddy dealers are doing. As we already know, and stated on many many occasions all along, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks is 'right' according to the law, including you , another CT dealer, your CT dealer buddies will do whatever they want anyways.

Thanks for confirming what a bad place Canadian Tire is to shop with this statement
Unregistered said:
"the second part of which is that if a store is charging restocking fees for off the shelf items, i don't blieve they should be. They absolutely have the right to, but I don't think it's right."
Click to expand...

I'll continue to do my shopping elsewhere. CT privacy violations, restocking fees and piss poor policies. No thanks.
 

LOL you call that a complete picture. Let's see how you play
One incident regarding a bicycle. One incident regarding a shop lifter. One incident regarding a plant return. Two investigations (no penalty or fine - one completely clear) for ID problems 6 years ago. A failed US expansion 30 years ago. warranty rules that are common to most retailers (repairs as an example) That's where your view comes from.

I know this because it's all you every discuss. Now lets look at the ENTIRE story, as it really is, not your version of what you want to exploit. Millions of customers spending billions of dollars year over year over year...for decades. Expanded stores, new stores in new markets every year. Proven acquisitions and major expansions of Marks Work Wearhose & PartSource. Mostly cash purchase of $700 million to buy Canada's biggest sporting goods company. (Not your claims of a billion dollar loan to buy) Perfection? Absolutely not. We make mistakes, we get things wrong, we are human running businesses with human. Your limited view and unwillingness to look at a large picture (or perhaps to understand it) is phenomenal. Seeing the big picture has landed me and my dealer cohorts where we are. Financially secure with a great lifestyle, integrated deep into the communities we serve as trusted business men... some of us in our late 30's and early 40's. I'm pretty darn proud of the role that we serve and how we do it. Your opinion ran its course many moons ago when you stopped seeing things objectively!
 
Fellow Consumers:

Don't be distracted by the unsubstantiated boasting of the arrogant Crappy People.

The important thing to remember is, Crappy Tire has the worst policies around:

Costco: "Overall: these policies and benefits are vastly superior to Crappy Tire, but require membership."

Walmart: "Walmart is better than Crappy Tire on almost every criteria. For other criteria, Walmart is at least as good as Crappy Tire."

Home Depot: "Home Depot is far better than Crappy Tire on almost every criteria. For other criteria, Home Depot is at least as good as Crappy Tire."

Zellers: "better policies, but for a shorter time."

Also keep in mind the attitudes we see, both on this store, and in the reports from our fellow consumers.

Choose your retailer wisely!
 

One? Just one mistake. Sure buddy sure if only that were true as it's sounds like a growing list lol. What about the other problems that customers have posted on this site? How about all those hidden camera reports on your suspect car services and your notorious bad car garages? Sure looks like more than one to me. I guess you forgot those.Or are you forgetting that it was you and your colleagues who denied your role in any of it, the Federal Privacy Act violations as a recent example. The privacy violations would have continued if the customer hadn't filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, isn't that right? One bicycle incident you say? Lets add two more incidents to that growing list. Hmmm oh what's this? Another defective bike lawsuit?

Rough translation, the parents bought two defective bikes from Candian Tire for their boys. The first day riding it, Simon, going down a hill, applies the brakes when suddenly the rear wheel lifts off. Resulting in hospitalization and surgery for a compound broken arm. His brother almost suffers a similar fate when he brakes to avoid a dog, causing the rear wheel to lift. He came out of it with minor scrapes. Judgement for the plaintiff. All right there in the public records that anybody can look up.

SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE :
L’HONORABLE
MARIE-ANDRÉE VILLENEUVE, J.C.Q

______________________________________________________________________

CLAUDE GAGNON
Partie demanderesse

c.

CANADIAN TIRE
Partie défenderesse
 
and here's a handy dandy translator Google Translate

SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE :


L’HONORABLE


MARIE-ANDRÉE VILLENEUVE, J.C.Q

______________________________________________________________________





CLAUDE GAGNON

Partie demanderesse



c.



CANADIAN TIRE

Partie défenderesse





______________________________________________________________________



JUGEMENT

______________________________________________________________________




[1] Le demandeur, personnellement et à titre de tuteur à ses deux fils mineurs, réclame 661,54$ à la défenderesse car celle-ci lui a vendu 2 bicyclettes qui se sont avérées dangereuses tant au niveau de la conception que de l'utilisation.

[2] La défenderesse plaide qu'elle a vendu plusieurs modèles semblables et qu'elle n'a eu connaissance d'aucune autre plainte. Cependant, malgré cela, elle offre de reprendre les bicyclettes et de rembourser au demandeur le prix payé lors de l'achat soit 299.04$ offre que le demandeur déclare insatisfaisante.

LES FAITS:

[3] Le 24 mai 2003, le demandeur achète 2 bicyclettes régulières (18 vitesses) neuves chez la défenderesse pour le bénéfice de ses deux fils mineurs Patrick et Simon âgés respectivement de 14 et 12 ans.

[4] Le 27 mai 2003, Simon utilise sa bicyclette pour la première fois. En voulant ralentir alors qu'il descend une rue, il freine mais la roue arrière se soulève subitement effectue une pirouette ce qui provoque la chute brutale de Simon vers l'avant. Celui-ci subit une fracture ouverte du bras qui nécessite une intervention chirurgicale et une hospitalisation de quelques jours de même que la mise en place d'un plâtre.

[5] Le ou vers le 19 juin 2003, Patrick utilise sa bicyclette pour la cinquième journée. En voulant éviter un chien, il se voit dans l'obligation de freiner mais là encore la roue arrière de la bicyclette se soulève brusquement. Patrick est pratiquement éjecté de sa bicyclette mais heureusement, il s'en sort avec quelques égratignures.

[6] Lors de l'audience, le Tribunal a examiné les 2 vélos. Comme le souligne le demandeur, les roues tournent mal, le pédalier est lâche et un des pneus arrière peut éclater à l'utilisation parce qu'il est pratiquement hors de la jante. Nul doute que les bicyclettes qui n'ont presque pas servi sont dans un mauvais état et qu'ils n'ont pas servi à un usage normal pendant une durée raisonnable. Le demandeur a donc le droit d'offrir de remettre les bicyclettes à la défenderesse et d'être remboursé du prix payé.

[7] Comme le mentionne le demandeur, il ne s'agit pas de vélos de montagne qui demande une manipulation particulière pour éviter des accidents. Il est vrai comme le souligne le représentant de la défenderesse que l'application des freins avant uniquement peut être dangereuse.

[8] Or, dans le cas soumis, le demandeur affirme que lui-même a appuyé légèrement sur le frein avant de façon prudente et que la roue arrière a soulevé instantanément. Les freins seraient trop puissants pour le poids et la grandeur des vélos.

[9] Le Tribunal conclut donc, vu ces circonstances, que les 2 vélos étaient dangereux et ont causé un préjudice plus particulièrement à Simon qui a été hospitalisé. Le Tribunal alloue la somme de 135,50$ de frais d'ambulance, 7,00$ de frais d'entrée à la plage dont Simon n'a pu bénéficier, 20,00$ en frais de stationnement.

[10] Le demandeur réclame 200,00$ à titre de salaire perdu à cause des rendez-vous médicaux. Il n'a cependant pas produit aucun document à l'appui de cette réclamation.

[11] Le Tribunal lui alloue par ailleurs une somme de 150,00$ à titre de troubles et inconvénients.



PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :

ACCUEILLE partiellement la demande de la partie demanderesse ;

ENTÉRINE l'offre du demandeur de remettre les 2 bicyclettes à la défenderesse et lui ordonne de s'y conformer;

CONDAMNE la partie défenderesse à payer à la partie demanderesse la somme de 611,94$, avec intérêt au taux légal à compter de l'assignation, soit le 15 août 2003, plus l'indemnité additionnelle prévue à l'article 1619 du Code Civil du Québec et les frais judiciaires ;

LE TOUT avec dépens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Chinese Tire
Replies
0
Views
4K
Freeno
F
N
CT is ranked #26 out of 28 Canadian Auto Service Providers
Replies
0
Views
131K
nathank
N
C
I'm a Proud Canadian, and wish Canadian Tire would stop using patriotism for crass marketing
Replies
0
Views
4K
Crow
C
C
How to loose and p.... off a customer
Replies
1
Views
2K
CT Challenger
C
O
Terrible CS when returning defective thermostat (Sudbury, ON)
Replies
3
Views
3K
Yves
Y

Similar threads

O
Terrible CS when returning defective thermostat (Sudbury, ON)
Replies
3
Views
3K
Yves
Y
D
Sale of Goods Act and "Repair Only" Non-Return Policy
Replies
2
Views
27K
Ramou
D
Sale of Goods Act
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
38K
CT Challenger
C
G
Returned goods put back on shelf to be resold (to me)
2
Replies
38
Views
23K
CTH8R
C
Menu
Log in
Register