Page 31 of 33 First ... 212930313233 Last
Results 301 to 310 of 322

Thread: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

  1. #301
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0572's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT_MANAGER View Post
    In otherwords it was not in the same condition as when you bought it. It's not considered new when you ride it around the block outside on the dirt/pavement.

    Reminds me of customers who bring back vacuum's claiming it's not powerful enough but swear they didn't use it at all. Yet when asked to explain how they know it is not powerful enough if it was not used, they then say they tried it once and was not poweful enough.

    In otherwords we CANNOT resell it because it's IS USED. Open the box and sure enough dirt and carpet fibers in "never used" (yet someone not powerful enough) the canister.



    Please explain how a product can be assume used because it was not put back in the home? (in this case, being hung up).

    The restocking fee was more than likely because the bicycle was used and could not be resold under the conditions of it being new and unused.
    Watch the store turn around and sell it for $179 again (as new).

  2. #302

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Watch the store turn around and sell it for $179 again (as new).
    If that happens, I definitely don't agree with that.

  3. #303

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by sarahWR View Post
    That's not true.. I am a cashier at a canadian tire and they will not make you pay it back. If you're short that much you will be fired for good, not suspended. If they know it's you actually stealing the money, they will bring you to court to get their money. But they can't make you pay it back without proof that it is YOUR fault the money is gone.
    Interesting case from Store #272.

    CanLII - 2007 CanLII 49745 (ON LRB)

    A 16-year-old cashier entered the wrong amount for a customer's credit card payment - an extra $1000. This was an honest error, but a big one.

    Despite having a policy of escalating warnings, the store skipped their own steps, and fired her at the first opportunity.

    Even though she had done nothing illegal, they also threatened her, to compel her to give them her last pay cheque. This was contrary to Regulation 288/01.

    Fortunately, the judge made them give her pay back to her.

    But their threats also caused the young lady to give them $40 out of her own purse. Since this wasn't part of her pay, the judge couldn't order the store to repay her.

    Nice job, Store #272!

  4. #304

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    There are several issues in the original story.

    First, there's the issue of restocking fees. Customers should be clearly told that there will be a restocking fee prior to the purchase. It's not good enough to put a sign at Customer Service saying which items will have these fees, but in fact I've never seen such a sign in a Crappy store. Even putting a notice on the receipt isn't sufficient notice, but Crappy didn't even go that far. And there isn't even anything on the web site about restocking fees at all.

    Then, there's the question of when a fee it to be charged. Since the web site, store signage and receipt are silent on this point, we can only guess what rules were used. But, if all the store needed to do was hang the bike back up, then there's no justification for a fee.

    There is also the issue of 'original condition'. The customer said it "had a few scuffs on the seat", so it wasn't even in 'original condition' for them. Either it wasn't looked after in the store, or it has already been used and then returned. So, the customer didn't even get it in "original condition" when they purchased it. The customer went on to say, "returned in same condition as bought" and had "used once to go around the block twice to try out". So, it was in "original condition", and this should not have been an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by CT_MANAGER View Post
    In otherwords it was not in the same condition as when you bought it. It's not considered new when you ride it around the block outside on the dirt/pavement.
    There is no reason to assume that the bike was dirty - the customer even said that this was not the case. You are just making things up, to try to justify the poor treatment that this customer received.

    Quote Originally Posted by CT_MANAGER View Post
    The restocking fee was more than likely because the bicycle was used and could not be resold under the conditions of it being new and unused.
    More guess-work and assumptions that are not justified.

    If we are taking turns making wild guesses, the fee was more than likely an attempt to rip off a customer who merely wanted to return an unsatisfactory item in its original condition, according to the store's own policies.

    The original story, and the resonse of CT_MANGER, are warning to other consumers to avoid Crappy Tire. If consumers decide to take a risk by purchasing from Crappy Tire, then need to be very wary of hidden fees and unstated policies.

  5. #305
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Store did her a favor taking a used bike back. Normally bike places don't take bikes back once used.

  6. #306

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Store did her a favor taking a used bike back. Normally bike places don't take bikes back once used.
    Ripping off someone for an undisclosed fee isn't doing a customer a 'favour'.

    If they'd charged a bigger fee, that wouldn't have been doing a bigger favour, lol!

    No, the store was obligated to take it back if it was "in its original condition and packaging".

    The bogus fee was just an extra slap in the face. They they hung the bike back up and kept the extra money.

    Not honest, and certainly no 'favourable'.

  7. #307

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    If we are taking turns making wild guesses, the fee was more than likely an attempt to rip off a customer who merely wanted to return an unsatisfactory item in its original condition, according to the store's own policies.
    Obviously what I said was a GUESS; I was not there. I never said it WAS the reason for it, I merely stated it MAY have been the reason. I was not there to see the condition of the bike and neither were you so we are BOTH guessing.

    Personally I've never worked in a store that had restocking fee's. I'd like to know how the restocking fee was charged to the customer. Looking at the customers return receipt would indicate how this was done. Was there a 98# number the store uses? Or did the customer service rep/manager reduce the return another way. That would be where we should go next.

  8. #308

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT_MANAGER View Post
    I was not there to see the condition of the bike and neither were you so we are BOTH guessing.
    No reason for guess-work on the condition - the customer already told us that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    -returned in same condition as bought-
    Typical of Crappy Tire to try re-writing facts they don't like.

  9. #309
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    No reason for guess-work on the condition - the customer already told us that:



    Typical of Crappy Tire to try re-writing facts they don't like.
    Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The whole world is against faker advocate. It's a conspiracyyyyyyyy! LOL!

  10. #310

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The whole world is against faker advocate. It's a conspiracyyyyyyyy! LOL!
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Page 31 of 33 First ... 212930313233 Last

Similar Threads

  1. Return Policy is false advertizing
    By Guest-0042 in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 14th, 2014, 06:50 PM
  2. Return policy
    By Bob in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 10:38 PM
  3. Ask an Employee
    By Employee in forum Employees Speak Out
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 24th, 2012, 12:08 AM
  4. Canadian Tire doesn't honor their return policy?
    By Guest-0160 in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: June 6th, 2011, 01:13 PM
  5. stupid b**ch hit my son......
    By dizzy in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 4th, 2010, 04:06 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions