As a result, the husband went to the store to pay the bill in cash, while his wife had made a payment online.
“So, there were two payments that came in at the same time,” the man tells 3TV.
Instead of canceling one of the payments, the couple says Kohl’s placed a $1,500 credit on their account.
Unsatisfied with the option, the couple contacted Kohl’s several times. Each time, the retailer refused to return the funds. In one instance, the man says a rep for the retailer told him to simply spend the credit to shop. The couple passed on the suggestion and contacted 3 On Your Side for assistance.
After 3 On Your Side contacted the retailer’s corporate office, the couple says they received an apology and were informed that a $1,500 check was on the way. However, Kohl’s never provided an expiation why the refund wasn’t granted sooner.
“I’m really in disbelief. The customer service was horrible. I should have been taken care of a long time ago,” the man says.
What the TV news story on this situation doesn’t explain is that this couple should never have had to jump through all these hoops. Both the Kohl’s credit card agreement and federal law require card issuers to refund credit balances at the cardholder’s request.
Under Regulation Z (Section 1026.11), any time there is a credit balance in excess of $1 on an account, the creditor must credit the balance to the customer’s account. That’s what Kohl’s did.
However, if a customer requests a refund of any part of the credit balance, the company has to provide that refund within seven business days from receipt of a written request from the consumers.
While the couple does not specify if they sent a written request for the refund, they should have been told of this option by Kohl’s support staff.
Additionally, the terms and conditions [PDF] for a Kohl’s credit card explicitly state that cardholders can ask for a refund, but makes no mention of requiring a written request.
Item 18 in that agreement, titled “Credit Balances,” states “You may request a refund of any credit balance at any time. Otherwise, we will apply it to any new charges on your Account or provide the refund to you as required by law.”
Finally, under Regulation Z, if a customer does not request a refund — perhaps they don’t know there is a credit balance — the creditor must make a good faith effort to refund by cash, check, or money order, or credit deposit to an account of the customer any credit balance that has remained in the account for six months. So unless this couple had used up that $1,500 credit in the course of six months, Kohl’s would have had to give them a refund at some point.
12/8/16
LA prosecutors sue giant retailers for deceptive pricing
Getty/AFP/File / SPENCER PLATTUS retail giant JC Penney is among the stores facing lawsuits from Los Angeles over "false-reference pricing," or advertising an item on sale, down from an original price, even if the item was never actually on sale for that price
Los Angeles prosecutors on Thursday announced they had filed lawsuits against retail giants JC Penney, Sears, Kohl's and Macy's for misleading shoppers into believing thousands of products were on sale at deep discounts.
The suits allege the retailers illegally engaged in the business practice known as "false-reference pricing" to make customers believe they are "getting a good deal."
For example an item can be advertised as being on sale for 50 percent of the original price, even though the retailer never sold it at that original price.
"Customers have the right to be told the truth about the prices they're paying -- and to know if a bargain is really a bargain," said Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer in a statement.
"My office will fight to hold retailers responsible for their practices and to ensure consumers can make informed choices when spending their hard-earned money."
Sears and JC Penney representatives declined comment on the litigation. Kohl's and Macy's did not reply to a request for comment.
The lawsuits said that the alleged false advertising schemes used by the four companies were part of their overall marketing and business strategies to boost earnings.
Under California law, retailers are banned from advertising a higher original price for an item unless the product was actually sold at that price within three months of the advertisement.
Stores can also tout a higher original price if an ad "clearly, exactly and conspicuously" mentions the date of said price.
The lawsuits list many of the items offered at phantom discounts including purses, maternity clothes, jewelry and household items.
In April, for example, Sears started selling a Kenmore washing machine with a "regular" price of $1,179.99 and a "sale" price of $999.99, even though the appliance was never on sale at the higher price.
In May, Macy's for its part offered a sterling-silver necklace for $30, down from the "original" price of $120. However the necklace was never on sale for $120.
The lawsuits seek injunctions to prohibit such advertising and civil penalties of up $2,500 for each violation.
JC Penney and Kohl's were previously hit with similar lawsuits in California that accused them of fake markdowns on retail items to trick customers into believing they were getting big discounts.
JC Penney in 2015 settled a class-action suit by agreeing to pay $50 million. The funds were distributed to affected California customers in the form of cash or store credit.
Kohl's earlier this year agreed to a $6.15 million settlement in a similar case.
----------------------------------
http://freepdfhosting.com/6590905c62.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment