Store credit
19 established claims - 15 refused by the grounding gate
Documented position12
What the body that runs or defines the thing says in its own documentation.
Refunds should be provided in the same form as the original payment unless the business and consumer agree otherwise.
1 quote from 1 source
Refunds should be provided in the same form as the original payment, unless the business and consumer agree otherwise.
- Repair, replace, refund, cancel | ACCC accc.gov.au
Store credit's documented position, as stated by CHOICE, is that a seller cannot make a consumer accept…
- a credit note when the consumer wants a refund.
- an exchange when the consumer wants a refund.
- a replacement when the consumer wants a refund.
1 quote from 1 source
If you want a refund, the seller can't make you accept a credit note, exchange or replacement.
Consumer Affairs Victoria lists the sign 'We will only exchange, repair or give credit notes' among signs it states are generally against the law.
2 quotes from 1 source
Generally, these signs are against the law:
'We will only exchange, repair or give credit notes'
- 'No refund' signs - Consumer Affairs Victoria consumer.vic.gov.au
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store or seller must comply with the terms of their in-store policies.
1 quote from 1 source
The store or seller must comply with the terms of their in-store policies.
- Consumer guarantees that apply automatically - Consumer Affairs Victoria consumer.vic.gov.au
Store credit is documented to have the position that where the problem is major, the…
- consumer has the option to choose a refund.
- seller must not refuse or insist that the consumer accept a credit note, exchange card or replacement.
1 quote from 1 source
The seller can offer you a refund for a minor problem. If the problem is major you have the option to choose a refund, and the seller must not refuse or insist that you accept a credit note, exchange card or replacement.
The ACCC states that a sign reading 'exchange or credit note only for return of sale items' is unlawful.
2 quotes from 1 source
For this reason, the following examples of signs are unlawful:
'exchange or credit note only for return of sale items'
The ACCC's guide for businesses and legal practitioners states that a sign reading 'Exchange or credit note only for return of sale items' is unlawful.
2 quotes from 1 source
For the same reason, the following signs are also unlawful:
'Exchange or credit note only for return of sale items'.
The ACCC states that a supplier…
- may have a store policy offering a refund, replacement or credit note when a consumer changes their mind.
- must abide by the store policy offering a refund, replacement or credit note when a consumer changes their mind.
1 quote from 1 source
A supplier does not have to give a refund when a consumer simply changes their mind about the goods. But a supplier can have a store policy to offer a refund, replacement or credit note when this happens. If so, they must abide by this policy.
Practical effect3
What is observed to happen in practice, as distinct from what is documented.
- Before offering store credit, Kogan customer staff first try to get customers to return goods to the manufacturer.
- If the first attempt by Kogan customer staff to get customers to return goods to the manufacturer does not work, Kogan customer staff usually next offer store credit.
- After an offer for store credit, Kogan customer staff next offer a larger store credit.
2 quotes from 1 source
According to Neil (not his real name), who worked for Kogan as a repair technician until late last year, it's standard procedure to force customers to jump through hoops if they have a problem with a purchase.
"First the contact customer staff will try to get customers to return goods to the manufacturer. If that doesn't work, an offer for a voucher will usually come next, then for a larger voucher.
Disputed between sources1
Sources that do not agree, presented without picking a winner.
For store credit, the ACCC's guide for businesses and legal practitioners states that the maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees is $1.1 million for a body corporate.
2 quotes from 2 sources
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
The maximum civil pecuniary and criminal penalties for a body corporate are the greater of: $10 million, or three times the value of the benefit obtained from the offence, or act or omission, by the body corporate and any related bodies corporate if the benefit obtained can be determined by the court
- accc.gov.au
- 'No refund' signs - Consumer Affairs Victoria consumer.vic.gov.au
Repeated, with no primary source in reach3
Widely repeated in the field. Within the documents this sweep read, it traces only to other repetitions - which is a fact about our reading as well as about the idea, until each one has been searched for on its own.
BIG W's 90 day change of mind policy provides a refund or exchange if the product is in original and saleable condition and packaging with all accessories included.
2 quotes from 1 source
BIG W will happily give you a refund or exchange within 90 days of purchase, provided you have proof of purchase and the product:
is still in its original and saleable condition and packaging, with all accessories included; and
JB Hi-Fi states that cover under its Extra Care plan ends upon first replacement with a new replacement product or payment, including by the issue of a store credit or JB Hi-Fi gift card.
1 quote from 1 source
ending on the date which is 5 years after the date of purchase/delivery or upon first replacement with a new replacement product or payment (including by the issue of a store credit or JB Hi-Fi gift card).
CHOICE reports that Kogan says it will not refund delivery costs in the case of a store credit or refund.
1 quote from 1 source
Kogan says: They won't refund delivery costs in the case of a store credit or refund.
Refused15
Claims the research produced that the grounding gate would not accept, with its reason. They are here because a site that only shows what passed gives you no way to judge whether the gate does anything.
Show what was refused
For store credit, Consumer Affairs Victoria states that the maximum penalties for a body corporate are the greater of $10 million or three times the benefit obtained.
Refused: The CAV quote states the maximum penalties for a body corporate but does not mention or tie those penalties to store credit.
Unsupported: For store credit
What it rested on
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
The maximum civil pecuniary and criminal penalties for a body corporate are the greater of: $10 million, or three times the value of the benefit obtained from the offence, or act or omission, by the body corporate and any related bodies corporate if the benefit obtained can be determined by the court
The ACCC's documented position on store credit is that a refund should be the full amount the consumer paid.
Refused: The cited quote addresses refunds, not the ACCC's position on store credit.
Unsupported: store credit
What it rested on
A refund should be the full amount the consumer paid for the product. The business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
The ACCC's documented position on store credit is that the business must not deduct an amount to take into account the use the consumer has had of the product.
Refused: The quote states the business must not deduct for use from a refund, not from store credit.
Unsupported: on store credit
What it rested on
A refund should be the full amount the consumer paid for the product. The business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
The ACCC gives an example stating that a hotel cannot provide a refund by way of loyalty points unless the consumer chooses to accept store credit instead.
Refused: The quote says the consumer may accept hotel loyalty points instead, not 'store credit.'
Unsupported: store credit
What it rested on
The hotel can't provide a refund to the consumer by way of giving them hotel loyalty points, unless the consumer chooses to accept this instead.
For store credit, the ACCC gives an example.
Refused: The quote gives a loyalty-points refund example, not a store-credit example.
Unsupported: store credit
What it rested on
However, if the consumer had purchased the accommodation booking using hotel loyalty points, the hotel can provide loyalty points back to the consumer as their refund. The consumer can't demand a cash refund instead.
For store credit, the ACCC's example states that if the consumer paid with hotel loyalty points, then the hotel can refund in loyalty points.
Refused: The quote describes a refund in loyalty points but does not mention store credit.
Unsupported: For store credit
What it rested on
However, if the consumer had purchased the accommodation booking using hotel loyalty points, the hotel can provide loyalty points back to the consumer as their refund. The consumer can't demand a cash refund instead.
For store credit, the ACCC's example states that if the consumer paid with hotel loyalty points, then the consumer cannot demand a cash refund instead.
Refused: The quote says the hotel can provide loyalty points back as a refund, but it does not mention store credit.
Unsupported: For store credit
What it rested on
However, if the consumer had purchased the accommodation booking using hotel loyalty points, the hotel can provide loyalty points back to the consumer as their refund. The consumer can't demand a cash refund instead.
The ACCC states that, with respect to store credit, businesses cannot take away a consumer's right to a refund or replacement for faulty products or services.
Refused: The quotes establish the general rule but none mentions store credit.
Unsupported: with respect to store credit
What it rested on
Businesses can't take away a consumer's right to a refund or replacement for faulty products or services.
It's illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights.
The ACCC states that, with respect to store credit, it is illegal to rely on store policies or terms and conditions that deny those rights.
Refused: The cited quotes do not mention store credit, only refusing refunds or replacements via store policies or terms.
Unsupported: with respect to store credit
What it rested on
Businesses can't take away a consumer's right to a refund or replacement for faulty products or services.
It's illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store or seller may still choose to give a refund, exchange or credit note in situations where the consumer guarantees do not require one.
Refused: The quote says 'some of these situations' but does not establish the antecedent as situations where consumer guarantees do not require one.
Unsupported: where the consumer guarantees do not require one
What it rested on
In some of these situations, the store or seller may still choose to give a refund, exchange or credit note.
The ACCC states that a supplier must not offer a credit note instead of a refund for store credit.
Refused: The quote says a supplier must not offer a credit note instead of a refund, but it does not state the added 'for store credit' qualifier.
Unsupported: for store credit
What it rested on
A supplier must not: • offer a credit note, exchange card or replacement goods instead of a refund
The ACCC states that a supplier must not offer an exchange card instead of a refund for store credit.
Refused: The quote says a supplier must not offer an exchange card instead of a refund, but it does not mention store credit.
Unsupported: for store credit
What it rested on
A supplier must not: • offer a credit note, exchange card or replacement goods instead of a refund
The ACCC states that a supplier must not offer replacement goods instead of a refund for store credit.
Refused: The cited quote supports the general prohibition on offering replacement goods instead of a refund, but it does not state the 'for store credit' qualifier.
Unsupported: for store credit
What it rested on
A supplier must not: • offer a credit note, exchange card or replacement goods instead of a refund
The ACCC's documented position on store credit states that when a consumer chooses a refund, the supplier must repay any money paid by the consumer for the returned goods.
Refused: The quote states the supplier must repay money for returned goods, but does not state this applies specifically when a consumer chooses a refund or in the context of store credit.
Unsupported: when a consumer chooses a refund
What it rested on
The supplier must repay any money paid by the consumer for the returned goods, and return any other form of payment made by the consumer
The ACCC's documented position on store credit states that when a consumer chooses a refund, the supplier must return any other form of payment made by the consumer.
Refused: The quote states the supplier must return any other form of payment for returned goods, but does not mention store credit or the refund-choice context.
Unsupported: on store credit
What it rested on
The supplier must repay any money paid by the consumer for the returned goods, and return any other form of payment made by the consumer