Simoniz Scam

**CT Me / Lawguy** · June 5th, 2011, 11:15 AM

lol I'm not asking you to do my homework you asshat, I already know the answer.

here's how this works. You make a claim.... such as we lose money on defective returns. i KNOW you're wrong, 100% certainty because well, it's my money and I see what gets debited and credited from my statement every day.
It's my money, my business my career, the food on my table, so you best believe I know where the money goes to and comes from.

You say i'm lying, because clearly you have more information then I do about how our financing works. LOL
So.......... i challenge you to tell ME, how my debiting and crediting works and what the payment channels are for defective products, returns, scrap items, repair items etc.....

Clearly the end result is as I expected it. You don't know the answer, you can not provide any bit of detail around how the process works. So instead you come back with, "I'm not doing your research for you" which is at best a pretty poor cop out! So again, you lose. You have made a claim that you can not substantiate. par for the course my friend, par for the course.

**CT Challenger** · June 5th, 2011, 09:24 PM

It’s so typical of a self-appointment CT rep to think they can give orders to consumers on a pro-consumer web site, LOL.

The rep wrote: “you answer the questions as i pose them”, “Tell me how are defective returns processed and paid for”, “Begin ”, “here's how this works. You make a claim ...”.

So demanding! Well, no thanks. We won't be doing their home work for them, or jumping through their hoops; thanks anyway for the offer.

Besides, there are lots of ways to know it costs CT money to process refunds on "repair only" items. Knowing all the ins and outs of refund processing is only one way.

But, hey, if any CT rep's decide to post some of their opinions and interpretations of how the refund process works, I suppose that might be of interest to consumers.

By the way, if any consumers are interested in this topic, you can have a look at this post:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3819

This topic is listed as CT Lie #14 - Refunds don’t cost the store anything, so there is no incentive to refuse a refund for a genuinely defective item.

Here's the explanation:

"Simple logic dictates that the processing of a refund to the customer and obtaining a refund from the manufacturer is going to require time and money to accomplish. Also, if the store gives the customer a refund, but the manufacturer has only agreed to repair the product, then the store will lose money by selling the item as refurbished or used.

"Finally, if there were no incentive to refuse a refund, then there would be no need to implement a 'repair only' policy in the first place, and no reason to risk upsetting loyal customers. Make no mistake. Absolutely, a refund for an exchange- or repair-only item will be costly for the store. "

I suppose the CT Rep might start splitting hairs, and claim that CT the corporation bears the cost, not the individual store. Hey, whatever. To a customer, CT is CT.

Now, I suppose the store might try to pass off used or refurbished goods as "new", in the hopes of recouping losses that way. But that's an "unfair practice" under the CPA, so of course there's no way any CT rep would ever stoop to such shenanigans, right? LOL.

Oh, wait: there's a thread for that: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...resold-me.html

Finally, there have been several prior CT reps who posted here stating that refunds for defective items cost the company money. So, were the prior CT rep's lying, and the new CT rep is telling the truth? Or, were the prior CT rep's telling the truth, and the new CT rep is lying?

Actually, does it really matter? We know that CT reps are liars already.

**CT Challenger** · June 6th, 2011, 06:15 AM

In this post:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...html#post1248:

A ct rep wrote:

“Canadian tire many have to eat the cost of the merchandise so there is a code 12 (Customer Satisfaction). Many of the stores are franchised so it's the dealer who has to eat the cost so it's up to that particular stores discretion whether to or not.”

Seems like there are some cases where "Canadian tire" will lose money ("eat the cost") if they give a refund for a defective item. Have a special code for it, even.

So, was that rep lying back then? I doubt it, since what they wrote makes sense.

Have things changed so much since then, so that now there aren't any cases left where a refund for a defective item will cost the store? No reason to think so.

Could recent posts by self-appointed CT reps, which make no logical sense, contain lies? Almost certainly.

**CT Me / Lawguy** · June 6th, 2011, 08:13 AM

Hey that's a neat tactic
You'll believe a CT rep if it suits your opinion, you'll call them a liar if it does not.

Based on the "code 12" comment from CT_Manager the answer is both are correct. If the store uses said option, they may end up eating the cost. There are other options available that perhaps this Manager is not aware of that will alleviate that cost from the store if a legitimate customer concern arises that falls outside of any warranty, repair, return etc... policy. I do not know who that manager is, or which store he is from. He has defended and represented CT quite well in some of the postings I have read. As a Dealer I know that I have worked very closely with my Management team so that they understand every option available to them to solve a legitimate customer complaint with the least grief and aside from processing costs, which is simply the cost of having staff and doing business, we do not bear the cost. I also trust their judgement that they will not abuse it because at the end of the day someone bears the cost, so it's not right just to ouster the cost onto someone else or some other company.

Having said that, I stand by my rebuttal to your claim that the store loses money on a defective return. As usual, you did not provide any information that substantiates the claim and I even led you to water with how you might defend your usually grossly misinformed and exxagerated claims and you still shot a blank. Why do you invent so much BS?

**Guest-0477** · June 6th, 2011, 08:39 AM