Refunds - change of mind - supermarkets

You may be right. Speaking of throwing entries into the bi…I had a friend some time ago who toiled in a well known investment bank which too used an algorithm. Not to pick the “most suitable” candidates from the endless stream that applied, but to cull every application that did not meet some criterion which the applying public was totally ignorant about.

1 Like

A recall for what? Just because you didn’t like the taste of the cottage cheese, doesn’t constitute a recall - there isn’t any evidence there was something wrong with the product which would warrant a recall. If this was the grounds for a recall, shelves would be empty as every product would need to be recalled, as it is likely that every product will have someone that doesn’t like it.

True or traditionally made cottage cheese naturally tastes like an ‘off milk’ product (similar to yoghurt or other cultured/fermented milk products), as they contain bacteria such as Streptococcus lactis or Streptococcus cremoris. These bacteria produce tastes and smells which if they were in fresh milk, would think the milk was off. Cottage cheese isn’t fresh milk and the bacteria are used to help increase the storage life of the product through the acid formation.

A recall is something I suggested in an earlier post. If a product label contains a false or misleading promise relating to the availability of a refund or exchange, the product with the offending wording should be removed from the shelves.

For the purpose of this discussion, goods sold by Woolworths appear to fall into three categories, being:

  1. Those subject to the fresh or free guarantee.
  2. Products with the packaging stating “if you’re not 100% happy with your purchase, we’ll replace or refund” or similar.
  3. Products that don’t fit within categories 1 or 2.

The conditions relating to return or refund for categories 1 and 3 can be found in the Woolworths terms and conditions. However, there there does not appear to be any specific references to the second category of goods in those terms and conditions.

It is also noted that the wording on the category two goods can be seen as a stand alone statement as it does not alert consumers to the existence of any applicable terms or conditions.

It is reasonable for someone reading the category 2 wording to believe that the refund or return opportunities for that product would exceed those for a category 3 product. If this is not the case the wording is either false or misleading.

2 Likes

I think you misunderstood. My comment on recall was in reply to your suggestion, tongue-in-cheek perhaps, that Woolies should recall products that may have misleading promises on the packaging.

Correction: it was Glenn61 who made the recall statement to which I referred, phb.

If for example, the wording was misleading, it would not qualify for a product recall, unless the error:

presents a safety risk or is non-compliant with a mandatory standard or ban, it may need to be recalled. (Source ACCC)

Mandatory standards are standards introduced when considered reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury to a person.

I have addressed if the wording is misleading above.

I also envisage that if a product is mostly consumed, I expect a supermarket won’t provide an exchange or refund if one claims they are not satisfied with a product. Doing such would quickly become exploited by some to get free products at the expense of the supermarket and cost to other consumers (prices would increase to cover losses).

As I posted, my experience with Colesworths have been that partially used and even empty (consumed or contents put in the garbage) containers under their ‘guarantees’ were promptly refunded/replaced every time, usually without hassles although sometimes requiring a supervisory approval as the worst of the hassles I have experienced over years re their ‘refund/replacement’ policies.

Yet they refund or replace house branded and other ‘guaranteed’ products as should be expected by their ‘guarantees’.

It would come down the reasonableness test and as outlined earlier, the approach taken in making the request or a particular customer’s history.

The ‘Guarantees’ are open to abuse to those who wish to profit from (abuse) them, and this would be in contrast to the goodwill of the intent of the satisfaction guarantee. I am sure Coles or other stores would respond in a similar way to ensure that their ‘guarantee’ isn’t potentially abused or exploited.

I say the reasonableness test as we have a family member who returned pants after about 3 years of good use, because the zip no longer functioned (it wore out). At the time the store guaranteed the quality of all its products, that they would give a good serviceable life. When returning the well worn pants, the store initially declined the refund saying that they had worn out (which they had)…but after some argument a refund was given. The store manager also made a comment that they don’t be providing a similar refund in the future a similar claim was made. It is in their rights to do so to ensure that their goodwill isn’t abused/exploited.

We have had the same experience over the years.

I accept that would be the case for recognised abusers, but restating

is contrary to demonstrated practice, and stating it may be a disservice to those of us who do not abuse it. What you may envisage vs what might be experienced as the norm seem different, at least in my family experience, in NE Melbourne.

For Woolworths, what is envisaged possibly is from what may have been experienced by some. Exploitation has been raised with the Coles ‘guarantee’, and it would be interesting to know if anyone has been refused a refund when taking a Coles product back to their stores. It is interesting that the article indicates that for Coles, ‘you have to truly be unhappy with it.’. This seems to be contrary to their messaging (if you’re not 100% satisfied) as well and possibly to reduce potential abuse. With Coles, it appears you can say that you are 99% satisfied with the product, and they will provide you with a refund - this isn’t the case. This wouldn’t pass the reasonableness test.

It is unfortunate that there are those who try and take advantage of everything available, whether it is goodwill of businesses, programs of the government etc. Businesses will respond in ways that protect their interests when they believe that they are being taken advantage of.

I agree that the only risk of injury from the label wording would be if if a member or public was refused a refund and an associated increase in blood pressure caused an emergency health event. Whilst I doubt whether this limited risk would be sufficient to warrant a recall, the OP may have a different view.

The key issue is that the Woolworths terms and conditions appear to be silent on what the 100% happy guarantee rally means. My suggestion to recall was based on the premise that if the guarantee provides no extra benefit Woolworths should remove the products with the offending wording to improve the customer experience, improve employee welfare and reduce their chances of receiving a Shonky award nomination.

All of the above is based on whether or not Woolworths does provide a refund or exchange on open items. It seems non-sensical to expect a person to know whether or not they are 100% happy with a food item if they are not allowed to break a packaging seal to taste or otherwise assess the product.

Coles might.

1 Like

Update as at 14MAY22

Some 5 weeks after I lodged the online complaint I received an email from Woolworths advising that they are snowed under with “online feedback” and that the relevant store mgr will call me.

Two days later he, Graham, did. He said that I was 100% correct in interpreting the Woolworths home brand guarantee. Not 100% happy means 100% refund or replacement. Customer to choose if he/she wants refund or replacement. He could only suggest the staff member I dealt with was not appraised of this policy. He appologised for the lack of service I received from his staff.

Anyway, he offered the $4.50 refund when I am next in the store. A bit more discussion and he agreed with me that providing me with a gift card indicating goodwill by Woolworths is fair given my experience.

Two days later (14MAY22) I arrived at the store seeking the refund and gift card and was very efficiently and politely served by the mgr on duty, Sonia.

So am I happy with the outcome? Sure I am. While it took time and effort on my part, Woolworths fixed a problem they created and resolved it to any fair minded person’s satisfaction.

Given the attitude of Graham and Sonia (managers of stores) contrasted greatly with the online staff, bots etc, I will never again lodge an online complaint or compliment via Woolworths.com.au but instead will try to deal with the store manager(s) to resolve a problem, be it on the day in question (something i could not do in this situation) or a later day.

3 Likes