He then buys Item C for £279.00
and got a £25 refund !
The Sanity Assassin - Member
Just for Chewkw
He pays £329.00 for Item B.
He takes it back and asks for a full refund. They say no, because he's opened the box, and charge him £25.00.
They refund him £304.00 (£329.00 (Item B) minus £25.00 (Admin fee))He has now paid the shop £25.00 and has bought nothing.
He then buys Item C for £279.00.
Therefore, he has paid the shop a total of £304.00 for a telly with a price tag of £279.00. (£279.00 (Item C) + £25.00 (Admin fee))
[b]AND THEN THEY REFUND ME £25 ONTO MY CARD [/b]
He is out of pocket. And a bit miffed about it too.
AND THEN THEY REFUND ME £25 ONTO MY CARD
No they don't - not in the way I just described the transaction(s)
I simplified the description to show that you paid an admin fee that they DID NOT REFUND.
Your telly cost £279.00 and you paid an additional £25.00 admin fee because you opened the box of Item B.
£279.00 = £25.00 = £304.00.
Did they refund you £304 after 'B'? You are all square if so.
Or did they use the £304 to deduct the final purchase and then refund the £25 onto your card? £25 down if so.
😆
Ah I see the problem.
Sanity doesn't believe you got refunded.
Drac - trolling from a mod is poor form.
I'm not trolling.
He's telling you he got a refund of £25, your claiming he didn't.
they do refund me
[URL= http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/unfitggeezer/DA645979-24BB-4F98-BD5A-2EF2A544D7E0-721-000000DB53469BF1_zps3193c5e3.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/unfitggeezer/DA645979-24BB-4F98-BD5A-2EF2A544D7E0-721-000000DB53469BF1_zps3193c5e3.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
[URL= http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/unfitggeezer/933278F4-5616-4E8C-8872-F8B628BBB522-721-000000DB5CF819FC_zpsd60294fe.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/unfitggeezer/933278F4-5616-4E8C-8872-F8B628BBB522-721-000000DB5CF819FC_zpsd60294fe.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
REFUND
[URL= http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/unfitggeezer/A229E985-7067-4CA4-9221-C015A901F92E-721-000000DB6C13C54A_zpsa5efbe25.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/unfitggeezer/A229E985-7067-4CA4-9221-C015A901F92E-721-000000DB6C13C54A_zpsa5efbe25.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
NOW WORK IT OUT !
I am grateful for all your hard work !
Photoshop? 😀
You is all square. It was all about how the refund had been processed. Goodnight, you can rest well now friend X.X.
I haven't got the words.........
Every other post I've made shows a £25.00 refund and how it has been worked out. I simplified the events because people are saying that the refund was the admin charge, which it's not.
He pays £329.00 for Item B
He takes it back. They charge him £25.00 admin fee for opening the box.
£329.00 (Item B) minus £25.00 (Admin fee) = £304.00
He now has £304.00 'credit' with which to make a purchase.
He chooses Item C for £279.00.
The difference between his remaining £304.00 'credit' and his £279.00 (Item C) purchase is £25.00
They refund him this £25.00.
He has therefore paid £279.00 (Item C) + £25.00 (Admin fee) = a total of £304.00
Im going to call customer services in the morning and try and get the £25 back fancy selling a SMART Tv without 4 on demand ! whats the point I ask you !
Hmmm, 20% of the refund will be VAT, which means that, unless you own a hunting estate in Scotland, you're £30 down.
Sanity Assassin
They didn't give him £304 credit, they refunded his £304 at that stage. (He paid £329)
That transaction is now done and dusted (£25 down at that stage)
He then bought 'C' in a seperate transaction for £279 and they refunded him another £25 onto his card.
All square, it came down to how the refund was handled.
SanityAssassin - as per username, Kill yourself; it's the only way to escape this madness
😆
I'm out!
I am nearly beyond words.
Can anybody just tell me if the bloody plane will take off, please.
Can't sleep until I know.
Including the op there are 16 posters on this thread.
Are the other 15 prepared to send him £1.66 by PayPal gift and then ask Drac nicely to delete this bloody thread then we can all sleep soundly in the knowledge that he isn't out of pocket???
I am 🙂
Edit: bloody hell GFS that's 17 now!!
Nice and simple 😀 You paid £279 for a TV and £25 'admin' . so yes you are £25 out of pocket!
You are £25 down & I am Spartacus.
[quote=theocb ]Sanity Assassin
They didn't give him £304 credit, they refunded his £304 at that stage. (He paid £329)
That transaction is now done and dusted (£25 down at that stage)
He then bought 'C' in a seperate transaction for £279 and they refunded him another £25 onto his card.
All square, it came down to how the refund was handled.
There's only one receipt showing a refund to the card; £25. He never had the £304 refunded to his card.
The whole problem of this thread has been caused by people assuming a refund sequence which never happened, and the OP never said happened - the only money transaction after returning the £329 TV was the £25 refund.
Can I suggest the OP checks his card statement and adds up all the ins and outs from richer sounds?
I had guessed they refund the £25 as you bought other telly so they waive the open box charge but if the first to receipts were not processed then you are £25 down.
PS if you've not opened the new TV then go and get the Sony back and buy a Roku stick
It looks from the receipt that his card was refunded with £304, so out of pocket by £25. He then bought a £279 TV for £279, which his card has been charged with and then a refund to his card of £25, so now not out of pocket. However, as it depends on whether the card has been refunded or store credit has been used it's probably best to do what Andy is suggesting and check your statement.
Never refunded £304?
Really?
So the pic showing £304 refund isn't real.
Breaks even. Here's how:
Starts out with £329.
Buys item for £329.
Has no money but does have TV.
Returns item and is refunded £304.
At this point, he's down £25.
With £304 in his 'pocket' he buys item for £279. He now has new TV (£279) and £25 still in his pocket, a virtual £304.
Is given £25 by shop, so he now has:
TV (£279); the £25 in his pocket; and the £25 from the shop.
Total = £329
Jeez can't belive this is still live, making me laugh.
You are NOT out of pocket.
Receipt show you paid 329 and had 304 refund. Rec 1 you are 25 down at this point.
Rec 2. You buy to for 279 and pay 279. This transaction neutral but you remain 25 down from first rec.
Rec 3. 25 given back to you.
Thus you are even.
It's all about how people are read the receipts, but you are not out of pocket.
So simples
-329 +304 = -25
-279 for goods value 279=0. (But still -25 from first trans)
+25 third rec
Therefore all equal
No no three fish you're supposed to add the refund as a loss.
[img] http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww128/Cutman2788/whats-going-on-in-this-thread_zps58604f09.jp g" target="_blank">
No no three fish you're supposed to add the refund as a loss.
Look at it sequentially and don't over-complicate it. I can't put it any clearer than as I already described. Could you point out in that calculation where yours differs?
Never refunded £304?Really?
So the pic showing £304 refund isn't real.
But that's just a till receipt (and one that hasn't been signed as you'd expect if it actually went back onto his card). The only evidence we have of an actual refund onto his card is the £25. As aracer says:
There's only one receipt showing a refund to the card; £25. He never had the £304 refunded to his card.The whole problem of this thread has been caused by people assuming a refund sequence which never happened, and the OP never said happened - the only money transaction after returning the £329 TV was the £25 refund.
I agree with this. We can't give a definitive answer without seeing the actual RS transactions on the card, it could be either, it depends entirely if the £304 went back onto his card, followed by the remaining £25 when he bought the £279 item, or whether the £304 was used as 'payment' for the £279 item, at which point they refunded the £25 difference.
In the former he's paid £329, refunded £304, then refunded £25. So the transactions go:
Spend £329
Refund £304
Spend £279
Refund £25
Break even.
In the latter he's paid £329, they take that back and he uses the £304 to pay for the £279 item, less the £25 difference. The transactions go:
Spend £329
Refund £25
Down £25
Till receipts show **** all - that's just their method of taking the £329 item back into stock, the PDQ receipt is the relevant one, and we only have the one for £25. If there's one of those for £304 refund, and another for £279 sale then he's even, if not he's £25 down.
...okay just to complicate it even more been onto customers service at Richer sounds and they are sending a cheque out for £25
Faith restored in the brand 😀
[b]So am I out of pocket now ? [/b]
Thread reminds of this puzzle:
[i] 3 men go into a hotel. The man behind the desk says a room is $30 so each man pays $10 and goes to the room.
A while later the man behind the desk realized the room was only $25 so he sent the bellboy to the 3 guys' room with $5. On the way the bellboy couldn't figure out how to split $5 evenly between 3 men, so he gave each man a $1 and kept the other $2 for himself.
This meant that the 3 men each paid $9 for the room, which is a total of $27 add the $2 that the bellboy kept = $29. Where is the other dollar?[/i]
Was it given to the bellboy as a bribe to keep quiet about what the three men were doing in the hotel room?
SPEND £344!!!!
329+25.
Jeebus save us.
So am I out of pocket now ?
No, and it looks like the assumption that aracer and I made that you never actually got the £304 back, it was merely used to 'buy' the £279 item was correct.
Now you're even.
SPEND £344!!!!329+25.
Jeebus save us.
Well that's just not right, on any level!
3 men go into a hotel. The man behind the desk says a room is $30 so each man pays $10 and goes to the room.A while later the man behind the desk realized the room was only $25 so he sent the bellboy to the 3 guys' room with $5. On the way the bellboy couldn't figure out how to split $5 evenly between 3 men, so he gave each man a $1 and kept the other $2 for himself.
This meant that the 3 men each paid $9 for the room, which is a total of $27 add the $2 that the bellboy kept = $29. Where is the other dollar?
As I assume you know - you can't add the $2 the bellboy nicks, that comes off the $27, leaving you back at the $25 for the room.
OOOPS. £354.
i DUN A SPREADSHIT
Notional transaction value Balance
Payment for Original item -289 -289
Gets orginal item 289 0
Sends goods back -289 -289
upgrade -40 -329
Gets upgrade 329 0
Sends upgrade back -329 -329
charge -25 -354
Refund for upgrade 329 -25
Payment for final item -279 -304
Gets final item 279 -25
refund for difference between upgrade and final (less charge) 25 0
plus goodwill 25 (revocation of charge, effectively) 25 25
WTF? That's just confusing, admittedly in part because of the formatting. It's simple:
it depends entirely if the £304 went back onto his card, followed by the remaining £25 when he bought the £279 item, or whether the £304 was used as 'payment' for the £279 item, at which point they refunded the £25 difference.In the former he's paid £329, refunded £304, then refunded £25. So the transactions go:
Spend £329
Refund £304
Spend £279
Refund £25
Break even.In the latter he's paid £329, they take that back and he uses the £304 to pay for the £279 item, less the £25 difference. The transactions go:
Spend £329
Refund £25
Down £25Till receipts show **** all - that's just their method of taking the £329 item back into stock, the PDQ receipt is the relevant one, and we only have the one for £25. If there's one of those for £304 refund, and another for £279 sale then he's even, if not he's £25 down.
the only difference is if you recognise the £25 charge. If you do he's currently up £25 if not he's at break even.
You've made the error of including (removing) the charge in the refund in your first scenario which it never is. (there never was a refund at that point) but if there had been it would have been £304 right enough.
and then omitting it altogether in the second.
If there was no charge he'd have got his goods plus the £40 upgrade transaction plus the tenner difference between orginal item and final item. but they knocked £25 out of that for the 'charge' intead of having two transactions (effectively scenario one).
the only difference is if you recognise the £25 charge. If you do he's currently up £25 if not he's at break even.
Yes, but that is the entire crux of the question, not really a little thing you can ignore.
The rest of your post makes no sense. Where the hell did the £40 come from?
How did I get sucked into this. This is worse than trying to explain how a ****ing plane works.
£40? the payment to get the thing he didn't want that was £40 more expensive than the thing that didn't work.
Planes work by firing sky hooks in to clouds and teams of galley slaves heaving and ho-ing on the ropes right?
Item A you mean? That's a red herring, take that out of the equation altogether. The only relevant items are Item B @ £329, and Item C @ £279.
Without seeing what actually made it back onto the OP's credit card we couldn't tell for certain if he was out of pocket or not. Now customer services have given him another £25 at worst he's broken even, at best he's £25 up.
