Good suggestion, I was told by a different sales lady during her break that the Manager I spoke to was the one in charge of the store, so I would avoid her. However, I will complain to the head office first.
Last edited:
Coach Returns Policy
- Thread starter midamimi
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Sorry, but I still don't understand the problem.
If the item you purchased and the items you returned are on the same receipt I'm not sure how they could have charged you more than the difference... it would have shown as an overpayment. The situation as you've explained it doesn't make sense.
I suggest that you call Coach customer service to get someone to look up your receipt in their computer system and perhaps they can explain it to you. Also, in future, I would suggest doing separate transactions... just explain to the sales associate that you need to do it for record-keeping purposes (I do it whenever I have a complicated transaction).
Finally, as someone who used to work in retail, let me just say that there's nothing wrong with the store taking your personal information... that's a requirement of any return transaction. Also, it doesn't sound like you had the original receipt for the items you returned. It's not the store's responsibility to keep all their transactions in their computer system, especially transactions from almost a year ago. Perhaps that's why you experienced some "rudeness."
If the item you purchased and the items you returned are on the same receipt I'm not sure how they could have charged you more than the difference... it would have shown as an overpayment. The situation as you've explained it doesn't make sense.
I suggest that you call Coach customer service to get someone to look up your receipt in their computer system and perhaps they can explain it to you. Also, in future, I would suggest doing separate transactions... just explain to the sales associate that you need to do it for record-keeping purposes (I do it whenever I have a complicated transaction).
Finally, as someone who used to work in retail, let me just say that there's nothing wrong with the store taking your personal information... that's a requirement of any return transaction. Also, it doesn't sound like you had the original receipt for the items you returned. It's not the store's responsibility to keep all their transactions in their computer system, especially transactions from almost a year ago. Perhaps that's why you experienced some "rudeness."
I was never asked for providing my personal identification for all my other previous returns at any of the Coach stores except the one I have visited yesterday. I was never asked by any retail stores for identification for any returns. Apparently that was not a Coach requirement.
There were some errors on the receipt, and I was overcharged a few dollars for the purchase. I was not responsible to supervise or monitor how the store cashiers perform their job correctly. That was the original receipt I was given. I don't get paid to work at Coach.
Blaming the customers for the errors and mistakes that a store had done is just rude and unacceptable.
It just doesn't make any sense at all regarding what you still don't understand when everybody does.
By the way your Math is wrong, the item transaction date was on August 2013, so it was 10 months ago, not over one year. This is worded as "Within one year."
Last edited:
It was CAD $80 not $4.Why are you creating this much drama over $4.29?
I am confused.
You need a new pair of glasses
Why are you creating this much drama over $4.29?
I am confused.
It's not 4.29. She's "out" a lot more than 4.29. She's basically "out" eighty something dollars.
That 4.29 is an error that resulted from a clerk inverting two different eighty-something numbers at some point. The 4.29 is a small "goof" error because of a slightly dyslexic switch of two eighty-something numbers.
The bigger problem is this:
She bought a $149 coat, and paid for it with $88 on her credit card, PLUS $84 in returned goods. So she paid for that coat with TWO forms of payment. However, only ONE of those two payments has been refunded to her when she returned the coat.
When she returned the coat to the store, the $88 was returned to her credit card, but what about those other goods she returned? What about that eighty-something dollars that she paid in the form of returned goods? Did they refund *that* portion of the $149 to her card? No. Did they return it in the form of store credit? No. Did they give her back the goods she'd originally returned when she'd bought the coat in the first place? No.
So she paid for that coat in two forms ..... eighty something on credit card, plus eighty-something in returned goods.
When she returned the $149 coat, they gave her the eighty something back to her credit card, but did NOT refund to her, in any way, the eighty-something she had paid toward the coat in the form of returned goods.
So she is, indeed, out eighty-something dollars.
The 4.29 is a different error, that occured because at some point, someone switched/inverted those two eighty-something numbers.
(Have to run, hope this sorts out.)
I should not have jumped into this thread.
Many thanks.
Actually, the store refused to return $88 back to my credit card. They only would refund what I paid with my credit card as a store credit.
All reputable stores ask for your personal information when conducting a return. If you refuse, they can refuse to honour the return. I have been asked for my personal information for EVERY return I've ever done. It's not a big deal... the store needs it in case it gets audited. And they're definitely not going to hand over money to someone who doesn't have an original receipt and who refuses to provide identifying information. They have strict loss prevention rules.
You're right, you're not responsible for making sure the employees do their job. But, especially since the manager did the transaction, I'm guessing that the misunderstanding is yours. It's not their job to make you understand a simple transaction.
Also, to be clear, I said "almost a year ago" not "over a year ago."
You're right, you're not responsible for making sure the employees do their job. But, especially since the manager did the transaction, I'm guessing that the misunderstanding is yours. It's not their job to make you understand a simple transaction.
Also, to be clear, I said "almost a year ago" not "over a year ago."
Who said that the store manager performed the transaction? (You?)
Who said that I refused to provide identification? (You?)
Who said that I don't have the original receipt? (You?)
x
Last edited by a moderator:
You implied that a manager was involved in the transaction (which was why you weren't going back to the store to resolve the issue).
I didn't say you refused to provide identification... I said "if"... and only in response to your original comment, where you made it seem like this was unusual. I was trying to provide you with context.
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you didn't have your original receipt, only because you mentioned that they didn't refund you in the manner that you originally paid (#1- Because you were issued a merchandise credit, #2- Because you said you asked the sales associate to look up your original transaction in their computer).
I was only trying to get clarification so I could try and give you specific advice. (Thus the "value" you speak of). Your previous posts are confusing... so much so another member had to explain it for you.
You've been very quick to jump on anyone who didn't immediately agree with you You're right, I shouldn't have commented. And if you're not prepared for questions and advice, perhaps you shouldn't post on a forum.
I didn't say you refused to provide identification... I said "if"... and only in response to your original comment, where you made it seem like this was unusual. I was trying to provide you with context.
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you didn't have your original receipt, only because you mentioned that they didn't refund you in the manner that you originally paid (#1- Because you were issued a merchandise credit, #2- Because you said you asked the sales associate to look up your original transaction in their computer).
I was only trying to get clarification so I could try and give you specific advice. (Thus the "value" you speak of). Your previous posts are confusing... so much so another member had to explain it for you.
You've been very quick to jump on anyone who didn't immediately agree with you You're right, I shouldn't have commented. And if you're not prepared for questions and advice, perhaps you shouldn't post on a forum.
Oops, I missed that minor detail -- that the $88 that should have been returned to your credit card, was returned to you instead in the form of store credit. But either way, that $88 you did get back. It's the *OTHER* eighty-something-dollar payment you made (in the form of two smaller returned items) that was never reimbursed to you.
The 4.29 is a minor goof, that I'm guessing you could probably live with. But unfortunately, it clouds the bigger issue. The bigger issue is that missing "eighty-something" payment ... indeed, half of the cost of the coat ... that was never returned to you.
Yeah, I get it.
If you try to explain it to someone else at Coach, and they don't "see" the bigger problem with what happened, then maybe try explaining it with an example like this ......
"I have a knick-knack for sale. It costs $22. You buy it. You give me a ten-dollar bill, and I charge the other $12 to your credit card. ...... Later, you return the knick-knack, so I credit that $12 back to your credit card. Tell me, do you still want your ten dollar bill back as well?"
..... People don't immediately "see" the bigger problem, because they don't think of those two smaller returned items as a form of payment for the coat. But they are. Just as much as a ten-dollar-bill-piece-of-paper is a form of payment.
Really hoping you can get some sort of satisfaction from this ... even just an admission from Coach that the person who processed the return of your coat, is not good at logic problems. :-/
Actually I did quit retail, when I finished my degree. I'm a journalist now... so I guess you could say I really do record history.
Last edited by a moderator: