Look.
He got charged 329poond for something he didn't want, he then got charged 25poond for opening it.
they then sold him something worth 279 poond that he did want and would have given him the 50 poond diference between that and the thing he didn't want but then they would have not get the 25poond for the opening it bit so they gave him 25 poond and kept 25 poond instead.
They've since had a change of heart and cancelled the charge and given him the 25 poond back therefore all is well.
EDIT: Yeah a bit like that, but more like mine.
they then sold him something worth 279 poond that he did want and would have given him the 50 poond diference between that and the thing he didn't want but then they would have not get the 25poond for the opening it bit so they gave him 25 poond and kept 25 poond instead.They've since had a change of heart and cancelled the charge and given him the 25 poond back therefore all is well.
You don't know that. The only evidence you have that he received any refund whatsoever is the photo of the £25. Nothing else shows that he was actually refunded anything. Everyone's assuming that a till receipt showing a refund means that he got the money back, but it doesn't, and that is the key to whether he's even, or £25 up now.
Oh my...
Step 1(buy TV 1) -£329 + TV 1 = even
Step 2(return TV 1) +£304 = down £25 (due to admin fee, but not unfairly if the OP signed the receipt to say he accepted this charge)
Step 3(buy TV 2 and get refund) +£25 + TV2 = down £25 (due to admin fee)
Step 4 (phone RS & complain admin fee wasn't reasonable) = +£50 & TV 2 = even
Nothing could be simpler, nobody did anything wrong, it's just RS's approach to customer services that is a bit confusing.
Err yes, think you're saying the same thing! He was out of pocket until he got the £25 back, but that's a confusing was of putting it! They never added £25, they just didn't give it back.
I am amazed this has got this far. I really cant explain it any more simply than has already been explained (it's adding and subracting, 7 year olds could do it.)
Mathematically you are even. However, I think you should count yourself as up, becouse you got the restocking charge refunded.
What say you to that?
Mathematically you are even. However, I think you should count yourself as up, becouse you got the restocking charge refunded.
What? 😕
He used the restocking service, but didn't pay for it (or did, but it was refunded)
😈
We're saying the same thing then. He was £25 down, he's now broken even.
Yeah, I'm just bored at work so cast a line, see if I could get any bites
Well this has been a lot of fun...
And now you're £25 up. Win!
Crikey, you lot still here?
Can someone explain to me how planes can fly upside down?
Majec!
Wow.
Op paid £329 for a TV he didn't want.
Took it back, [i]they gave him store credit [/i]to the tune of £304, which is the total price he paid less their restocking fee. This is what's happening in the first receipt image.
With his £304 credit, he bought a TV for £279. Second receipt.
This is £25 less than his credit is worth, so they refund him the remainder of the store credit back to his card (third receipt).
The question "am I out of pocket" hinges entirely on whether or not you consider being charged a restocking fee to be out of pocket or not. The answer to "have they got it wrong" is "no."
Just to aid confusion, four pages later we find that they're refunding the restocking fee by cheque, so it's moot anyway.
The problem with this entire question (other than it being vaguely described in the first place) is that the restocking fee and the difference between set B minus the fee, and set C, is the same figure. It's easy to think "oh, well they charged him then refunded it" but that's not what happened here. If the new TV had been a tenner cheaper at 269, he'd have been charged a £25 restocking fee and then received a £35 refund to his card.
[img] 
[/img]
If it takes a fly a week to walk a fortnight, how long does it take to sandpaper an elephant down to a greyhound?
