PEN or PIN - Pity that the clowns running Outlet Books at the Brisbane Airport DFO don't know the difference!

PEN or PIN is the brilliant, new initiative from 4 June 2008 to slowly move from authenticated signatures on credit card transactions to the use of a PIN, as with EFTPOS transactions.

But some retailers are acting like merchant dinosaurs in failing to properly train staff or adapt to the new system.

Take "Outlet Books" at Shop 50 at the Airport DFO in Brisbane whose PR skills make Belinda Neal look like a Sunday School Choir Leader.

The official new credit card operating procedures for all staff include the following key requirements in the Staff Training Materials:

• If the customer says it’s a ‘credit’ transaction, ask them if they want to enter their PIN.

• If the customer elects to use their PIN, ask them to enter their PIN into the PIN pad.

• Q: How will my procedures change? A: Your procedures should not change too much. When you ask the customer which account they wish to use they will respond with ‘credit’, ‘cheque’ or ‘savings’. If they say ‘credit’ ask them if they want to use their PIN. If they say ‘yes’ then pass them the PIN pad (or turn it) and ask them to enter their PIN then press the ‘OK/ENTER’ button. If the transaction is approved, pass one receipt to the customer and retain the other for your records. There is no need to ask the customer to sign the signature slip if the PIN has been used and the transaction has been APPROVED.

But that's not how it works at Outlet Books.

Today a customer when in to purchase a book and told the staff member that it was a credit transaction with a PIN.

The staff member proceeded to finalise the transaction - contrary to the above operating procedures - without querying if the customer intended to use a PIN and did not offer the customer the machine to key in the PIN.

The staff member then asked for a signature which the customer rightly refused, asking that the transaction be cancelled and re-processed as a credit card PIN transaction.

Outlet Books at the Brisbane Airport DFO where
the slogan: "Pen OR PIN - Now you have a choice"
means absolutely nothing!

The staff member stated that it was not possible to cancel the transaction as it had already been approved and then sought assistance from the manager who may also be the owner given her defiant attitude which ensued from that point on.

She stated that Outlet Books does not give refunds. That admission is interesting given that Outlet Books Pty Ltd is a trading corporation within the meaning of the Australian Constitution and is bound by the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act which prohibits corporations from refusing refunds. This is now a separate matter for the ACCC to look into.

The Manager then blamed the inexperienced casual staff member and then stated than PEN or PIN was an option - but failed to point out that it was at the option of the customer NOT the merchant.

The customer insisted that the transaction to be cancelled - correctly pointing out that the new system had commenced on 4 June and had had extensive publicity and newspaper advertising.

The Manager then stated that a PIN cannot be used with all cards yet and that because the customer had not told the staff member early enough in the transaction process that he wanted to use a PIN, it was too late to do so.

Hang on! Don't procedures state that the customer must be offered the choice? This was not done.

The machine would have shown the following display after the staff member entered the credit card details:

PIN or OK?

But the staff member chose to disregard this - overriding the customer's choice - and was therefore solely responsible for placing the customer in such a predicament.

After this was explained by the customer to the Manager, she fumed that every transaction cost her money to process but she would refund the amount.

She then proclaimed that she would NOT re-process the sale as a credit transaction with a PIN.

In other words, the customer could lump it or like it - sign the docket or get the refund and leave the store because she would not sell the book to the customer via the customer's preferred, rightful and lawful use of his credit card.

Outlet Books Pty Ltd uses the Commonwealth Bank as its Merchant Bank who really should crack down on this sort of commercial bastardry where a customer properly insists on an electronic refund and is then told that the bookstore will NOT re-process the order, and is therefore denied the right to purchase the book of their choice via the credit card and transaction type of their choice. This matter will be referred to the Commonwealth Bank who are invited to comment on their view of what happened today.

In the end, the customer chose the latter offer of a refund and a total sale cancellation with a refusal to process the sale via the customer's credit card with a PIN.

If all of this was not bizarre enough, read on:

In an endeavour to diffuse the situation, the customer said that he had often come to the store in the past to which the Manager retorted:

"Yes, I remember you. You raised this same matter previously when you were here with your wife."

The customer pointed out that he had never been there with his wife, that he had not been in the store since 4 June and therefore could not have previously raised the issue of PEN vs PIN.

In fact, the customer not been there for almost 6 months - at a time when the possible use of PINs with credit cards was not even on the horizon - rendering the manager's idiotic statement false and meaningless.

But the Manager still would not let go - even when she was totally wrong, sarcastically stating: "Well, it must have been someone who looked like you!"

Why in heaven's name did she not simply refund the customer's money, process the order in accordance with the customer's request and get on with running the store in a customer-friendly manner.

The customer got his refund and walked out of the store to the DFO Centre Manager Mark Bayes' office.

Mr Bayes is on leave for a week so Queensland Consumer Watch anxiously awaits his response to this tawdry incident.


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.

Major legal loophole exposed in Queensland Blue Card Law

MEDIA RELEASE FROM IPSWICH COUNCILLOR PAUL TULLY

MAJOR LEGAL LOOPHOLE EXPOSED IN QUEENSLAND BLUE CARD LAW

CALL FOR SEX OFFENDERS TO BE BANNED FROM OPERATING ICE CREAM VANS IN QUEENSLAND

A major loophole in Queensland's Blue Card law has been exposed which allows convicted pedophiles to legally come into contact with young children by operating as mobile ice cream vendors.

The loophole was discovered by Ipswich Councillor Paul Tully after a parent complained that she believed a sex offender was running a mobile business in southeast Queensland selling ice cream.

Cr Tully has called for Queensland's Blue card system to be extended to include itinerant ice cream vendors.

He said many U.S. state and local legislatures were rushing through laws to ban convicted pedophiles from operating ice cream trucks and other vehicles for the purpose of attracting children.

On June 12, the Governor of Tennessee Phil Bredesen signed a new sex offender bill into law banning convicted pedophiles operating mobile ice cream vans.

Investigators had discovered several sex offenders operating ice cream trucks in the state of Tennessee.

In one case, an ice cream vendor had been arrested three times for rape of a child, sexual exploitation and exposing himself to a person under the age of thirteen.

Under the new Tennessee law, sex offenders are also banned from dressing like or impersonating real or fictional characters for the purpose of preying on children.

Other US states considering bans on sex offenders driving ice cream trucks include California, South Dakota and Massachusetts.

Queensland's Blue Card law has been operating since May 2001.

Cr Tully said innocent children could be attracted to ice cream vans with limited parental supervision.

"The law should be changed immediately to ban convicted pedophiles from operating ice cream vans across Queensland.

"We should not wait until a tragedy occurs.

"Inquisitive young children could easily be attracted into an ice cream truck by a conniving sexual predator.

"At the moment, there are no checks on such drivers or owner operators, giving them free rein to attract young vulnerable children into their vans," Cr Tully said.


RELATED LINKS:

CLICK HERE: Eyewitness News Memphis, Tennessee covering the new ice cream vendor legislation on 12 June 2008.

CLICK HERE: USA TODAY 12 May 2008 - "Push on to inspect ice cream vendors' pasts".


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.

Check your title deeds - Do you really own your own land?

Spare a thought for Bruce Leslie - one of nature's true gentlemen from Goodna.

Bruce is an internationally-renowned engineer and the the proud owner of the new Goodna Technology Park, employing over 80 staff with plans for expansion. Or, so he thought!

Stage 1 of this brand new high-tech park - located on a 5.9 hectare block of land at Goodna with fabulous Brisbane River frontage - opened this week.

This is the site of the 2006 world-famous experiment between NASA in the United States and mining equipment at Goodna which was operated by remote control from Boston Massachusetts to see if mining could be conducted on the moon via remote radio control.





The 5.9 hectare bock of land at Brisbane Terrace Goodna -
the site of Goodna Technology Park.

The experiment was reported in The Queensland Times:

GOODNA FIRM ENTERS SPACE RACE
October 27, 2006
GABRIELLE WHEATON

NASA is not coming to Ipswich. Why? Because it won't need to thanks to the research of CSIRO and Go 4 Mining at Goodna.

Go 4 Mining owner Bruce Leslie said CSIRO had been using its drag line rig, probably the only one of its kind in the world, to conduct tests of its own.

Reports in the media stated NASA would come to Ipswich to conduct tests on mining equipment for future use on the moon, but Mr Leslie said these plans had been delayed.

Mr Leslie said CSIRO had been conducting research into the automation of mining machines for 10 to 15 years, and were the most advanced in the world. CSIRO senior research scientist Kane Usher said the technology had already been tested on Tuesday, using a NASA researcher working out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston.

Bruce Leslie feeling like he's been devoured by a
shark after the monumental property transfer stuff-up.

Scientists are trying to establish the world's first fully automatic remote-controlled drag line system, capable of moving huge amounts of dirt when strip mining. "Mining is going to be the same anywhere off-world or here on Earth," Mr Usher said.

Mr Usher said the technology had been remotely tested twice so far through a website, the first time in September, and all the results were reported to NASA.

"It's just an internet page so it can be operated from anywhere, all you need is Firefox, but obviously the machine has to be on and all our software has to be running," he said.

Mr Leslie thought it was good to get exposure because of the agency's involvement and said the technology could save Australia's mining industry up to $100 million a year. Australia has 70 drag lines, about one fifth the number in the western world. Mr Leslie said before Go 4 Mining started designing drag line buckets most equipment came from overseas.

"Since we've been doing the designs for a company in Mackay they've picked up 80% of the market," Mr Leslie said. "Queensland is well advanced in drag line research and our work here is easily the highest quality in the world."

He explained the majority of drag lining was tedious work, but required a lot of skill, which was why operators would always be needed despite the advances in technology.

The automated drag lines would hopefully increase production while also allowing operators a reprieve from the most mundane aspects of the job.

"It's high-level task planning where the operator decides where to dig and dump. It makes operation more efficient and makes it easier for an operator to do a really good job and who knows, it could end up on the moon," Mr Leslie said.

Bruce decided to subdivide his 7.9 hectare block which was processed through two sets of solicitors, the bank and the Titles Office earlier this year.

There was a new 2 hectare block which was intended to be sold off to a company called Ravenshore Pty Ltd with Leslie Consulting Pty Ltd retaining the balance 5.9 hectare parcel of land, where Bruce was constructing his 2-storey office block.

By a sheer fluke, local Councillor Paul Tully was examining the property ownership changes this week which had been received by the Ipswich City Council and noticed that the 5.9 hectare block - which Bruce Leslie thought that he had owned - had actually been transferred to Ravenshore Pty Ltd.

Ravenshore Pty Ltd thought they were buying a vacant block next door to Bruce's property for $2.31 milllion. But legally, they had acquired the adjoining 5.9 hectare property with Brisbane River frontage - plus a fantastic new office block - with an all-up estimated value approaching $10 million.

The vacant block of land next door which was
accidentally transferred to the wrong owner.

Bruce legally ended up with the horse paddock next door when he thought he was the rightful owner of the u-beaut Technology Park development.

But all's well that ends well.

Documents were rushed to the Titles Office and lodged at 2.11pm yesterday to correct the error.

A similar problem occurred in Caswell Street Gailes in the 1950s with half a dozen properties wrongly located on adjoining properties. That debacle took over 30 years to correct.

The new office block at Goodna Technology Park -
the cause of a legal dilemma.

The moral of this story is to personally check and re-check documents being lodged with the Titles Office.

Although it is a rare occurrence, mistakes can occur between vendors, purchasers, solicitors, banks and the Titles Office.

Why don't you check right now that you legally own the property you are living in?

If there is a problem, see a solicitor quickly because under Queensland law, a property sold in good faith to a third party becomes the property of the third party and normally cannot be returned to the true owner.

Do you know of a property transfer stuff-up?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details of the case.

Telstra Chief Sol Trujillo laughs as consumers languish!

According to The Courier-Mail on 8 December 2007, the CEO of Telstra Sol Trujillo now has an obscene pay package of $22 million a year.

It's a pity that his lust for the big money is not reciprocated to consumers with an emphasis on quality service.

Just take this example of Telstra treating customers with total disdain.

Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo

thinking of ways to increase
his $22 million annual salary
package.

Last Tuesday 3 June 2008, my home phone / internet line went as dead as a door nail and was promptly reported to Telstra with a guarantee it would be fixed by 7pm Tuesday 10 June 2008.

This was despite advice today from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman that this time frame exceeded the customer guarantee for fixing landline faults, which Telstra is obliged to follow.

I was assured that if a technician attended my home and we were not there, they would leave a calling card with a contact number.

On Friday, I called Telstra on an unrelated matter and was told that no technician had yet been assigned to my job - 3 days after the initial complaint.

Today, a check with Telstra in Ipswich revealed that a technician did come out on Saturday but had failed to leave a calling card.

The problem was supposedly a line fault in the second pit from my home which allegedly had concrete over the top of the pit.

Today, I personally inspected all of the pits from my home for a distance of 250 metres. Lo and behold, there was no sign of any concrete impeding access to any pit over that distance.

Sol Trujillo holds up 10 fingers -
one for each of the almost
$100,000 he earns each
weekday as head of Telstra.

A call to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) gave me a reference number and a contact number with Telstra who blithely told me that they had 10 days to respond positively to a TIO complaint but that they would pass my complaint onto a case officer.

I suppose I should be really grateful for that.

So, Telstra now has 17 days to fix this line problem!

You make a complaint to the TIO which automatically gives Telstra extra time to finalise the matter - a pretty, bloody stupid system.

The TIO stated that Telstra will be liable for breaching their Customer Service Guarantee with a daily penalty of $14.52 for 5 days (after either 1 or 3 days, depending upon my location) plus $48.40 a day thereafter.

Frankly, I cannot give a hoot about this compensation.

As a loyal customer of Telstra for 34 years, I expect nothing more and nothing less than a prompt response to my complaint with the line being fixed as a matter of priority.

And a note left in my letterbox as promised, rather than hanging around like a dill waiting for Telstra to arrive.

In the good old days in the 60s, you could speak directly with a technician at the local exchange and get prompt replies and service.

Now, while Sol Trujillo counts his weekly salary of $423,000, all I want is my bloody phone connection restored!

Is this Sol Trujillo
counting his $1.83 million
monthly pay packet.

Sol - is that too much to ask? Sol, Sol - are you listening? Sol, Sol - what's that noise? Actually, it sounds like bank notes being counted with ecstatic laughter every few seconds!

Sol, Sol - I know you are busy but could you please spend just a few minutes to help one of your loyal customers.

WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK
Have you had a problem with Telstra?
Has Telstra failed to give you proper service within a reasonable time frame?

Has Telstra treated you as a nuisance rather than a customer?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details.

Goodna Hungry Jacks booms as Booval rip-off exposed

Hungry Jacks Goodna is doing a roaring trade after its official opening last Tuesday 22 April 2008.

Friday night was chaos with carloads of parents and children backed around the corner past the Church Street roundabout eagerly awaiting Goodna's new food outlet, next to the Caltex Service Station on Brisbane Road which is the service road which runs parallel to the Ipswich Motorway.

Friendly and alert staff have the Goodna drive-through operation running like clockwork.

This new outlet will undoubtedly give the nearby McDonalds store a run for its money with what many people regard as a superior product.

Goodna's new Hungry Jacks store which opened
this week. The store is already being criticised by
its own rival Hungry Jacks store at Booval in Ipswich.

But inter-store rivalry between competing Hungry Jacks outlets has already surfaced with the Booval Hungry Jacks ripping off customers and at the same time accusing the Goodna store of "doing the wrong thing" and charging customers more for the privilege.

However the claims by Hungry Jacks at Booval against their Goodna rival are completely off the mark because it is actually Booval which is deliberately dudding customers.

At McDonalds, kids meals comprising chicken nuggets, fries and a drink can be ordered as as 3 or 6 nugget pack.

But at Hungry Jacks, 3 nuggets are standard and extra nuggets have to be purchased as a separate add-on.

At Hungry Jacks Goodna - as the attached receipt attests - extra nuggets cost 90c each, or three for $2.70.

At Booval, customers are told that they cannot order 3 extra chicken nuggets - the minimum order being 4.

This costs the unsuspecting customer $3.15.

If customers query the 4-buy minimum for extra nuggets - when Goodna sells them as single extras - they are told that it works out cheaper than the way Goodna is charging and that their Goodna store should not be charging on a per nugget basis.

A customer today queried this advice when he actually produced - at the Booval drive-through - a Goodna receipt from 25 April 2008 for 3 nuggets @ 90c or $2.70.

Hungry Jacks Booval is clearly ripping customers off by forcing them buy a minimum of 4 extra nuggets for $3.15 when their counterparts at Goodna will gladly provide 3 extra nuggets for $2.70.

The unit price might be cheaper but the overall cost is clearly greater at Booval because of their higher minimum quantity, as the attached receipt from the Booval store in Ipswich shows.

Copies of receipts
from the Goodna and
Booval Hungry Jacks
stores showing which
one is ripping-off
customers.
[CLICK TO ZOOM]

For the Booval store to be slagging their "opposition" at Goodna is one thing, but falsely accusing Goodna of doing the wrong thing and ripping off customers is pretty weak when it is the Booval store doing the very thing itself.

Hungry Jacks Goodna is providing a cheaper alternative for struggling families in difficult financial times and the Booval store should be reprimanded by their superiors in Brisbane for its underhand tactics in condemning the Goodna store for its initiative and customer-friendly approach.


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.

Harbour Town on the Gold Coast - a Death Trap!

Harbour Town on the Gold Coast is regarded as one of the best shopping centres in Queensland, although its myriad of lanes and alleyways which make up the centre normally requires a compass or GPS unit to navigate the site.

But one thing which is lurking in Harbour Town is the lack of public fire safety with at least one store giving the public "two to the Valley" with its apparent attitude towards customers if a fire were to break out in the store.

Queensland's fire safety laws have been enacted by Parliament for a very good reason - to ensure that members of the public, men, women and children, are protected as far as humanely possible in the event of a fire.

It is not helped by stores such as Tivity which deliberately block the fire exit, preventing people from reaching safety if a fire broke out.

In this day and age, how can Tivity possibly justify blocking a safety exit.

There have been too many tragedies around the world where fire escapes have been locked or blocked to ignore these sorts of transgressions.

A picture speaks a million words in this case.

Despite the clear red lettering "EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY", someone in Tivity has taken it upon themselves to place a display rack standing about two metres high, right at the entrance to the door.

The picture clearly shows the metal rack behind the fire door with other merchandise on the floor just behind.

You don't have to be Einstein to know that emergency exit doors are designed for one reason and that by blocking them with display racks, could lead to a real tragedy.

Harbour Town Management needs to act swiftly over this issue.

We are talking about people's lives - where there can be no compromise!

Tivity should be ordered to immediately remove this physical barrier from the emergency exit.

If they fail to take action, they should be referred to the Gold Coast City Council and the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service for their apparent blatant disregard of Queensland's fire safety laws.

The major concern is that store owners and managers often don't care about fire safety.

"I didn't think it would happen to me," is the usual utterance after a real tragedy occurs - then it is far too late.


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.

Moviegoers given dud deal by Birch Carroll and Coyle

Michelle Vecchio might be pretty smart academically when it comes to being the Queensland Marketing Manager for Birch Carroll and Coyle (BCC) but she appears to be out of her depth on the issue of forced seating allocations.

BCC has recently unilaterally imposed seat allocations for all movie goers at its cinemas including Garden City, the Myer Centre, Chermside and Indooroopilly.

In the past, you could walk into the cinema and pick your own seats based on the theatre layout, distance from the screen, how tall the people were in front of you and whether or not you wanted to be surrounded by young and restless children.

Not any more.

It all seemed to work very well until the marketing gurus at BCC decided that they were smarter than the Australian public and that people must be told where they had to sit.

That might work in a crowded cinema but how can it be justified in a cinema less than half full?

This is exactly what happened to me and my two sons a fortnight ago at the Chermside edifice of Birch Carroll and Coyle.

John Paul aged 8 and James who is 6 fronted up to watch the Bee Movie and we were politely informed that we would be given specific seat allocations.

When I queried this, I was told that it was "world's best practice" by the dizzy young blonde behind the cash register.

"You can pick your own seating," she said.

"That's what I want to do," I responded.

"No - here on the screen. Pick your own seats."

"OK. Give me these three on the side about half way up," I suggested because my boys wouldn't have anyone in front of them and we wouldn't have anyone behind us kicking the seats and generally annoying us for an hour and a half.

I asked if she would keep the seats free around us for that very purpose.

"Of course," the sweet, young thing from BCC nodded with mock approval because 10 minutes later we were in our seats with a group of wriggling kids immediately behind us and tall moviegoers in front of us - which forced my kids to sway from side to side for the whole movie trying to get a a glimpse of part of the screen.

We had been mislead - if not lied to - by the staff of Birch Carroll and Coyle!

The cinema was less than a third full and whereas previously we could have chosen our own seats, we were now forced to sit in unacceptable, pre-allocated seats like regular inmates in a German concentration camp.

And now Michelle Vecchio reveals the height of her marketing prowess when she declares that forced seating allocations at BCC cinemas are no different from attending a QPAC concert or a major sports stadium.

I'm surprised she didn't throw airline seating in as well.

Michelle - there is no comparison!

When you go to your favourite coffee shop and there are plenty of spare tables, you would be unhappy if the staff told you where to sit, irrespective of your own wishes.

In my 50 years of movie going since I first enjoyed the canvas seats at the El Dorado cinema at Indooroopilly in 1957, I have never seen fist fights or punch-ups over self-selection seating arrangements.

What has changed so dramatically to force this new situation on patrons?

Ah! World's Best Practice. World's Best Bloody Practice!

As if we should all bow down and exalt: "World's Best Practice is good for me and good for Australia".

I am in full agreement with the woman in The Courier-Mail who described BCC's new arrangements as "stupid" and vowing never to return after they "has all been lumped together towards the back of the theatre, all in neat little rows on top of each other".

She went on to say: "So long BCC, it's been nice, but don't expect the people in my group to return until this stupidity is removed and people can make their own decisions as to where they want to sit".

Michelle - come down out of your ivory projection room - and talk to the people who are really angry at this new company policy which you are defending so passionately.

It used to be great in a Birch Carroll and Coyle cinema to flop into the first available seat.

Now, the only flop is the company's new seating policy.

And movie goers who object to the new arrangements should boycott BCC and save a stack at the same time by patronising the Cinexplex Cinemas at Southbank, Balmoral, Hawthorne and Victoria Point where adults pay $6, students $5 and children $4 to attend daytime screenings Monday to Friday and just a little more at other times.

And where the popcorn, drinks and ice creams are half the price of that charged by Birch Carroll and Coyle!

It is all reminiscent of 2 years ago when the Birch Carroll and Coyle / Greater Union chain placed a ban on patrons bringing their own food and drinks into their theatres. The only reason that the patrons were doing it was because of the crackerjack, ripoff prices which they were - and still are - being charged.

The people of Australia voted with their feet and this company - which seems to be perpetually full of out-of-touch marketing experts - was forced to back down.

Click here for a flashback to this disgraceful action by this money-hungry conglomerate.

Will they ever learn?


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.

Coffee Club leaves customer boiling!

The following SMS Letter to the Editor was published in the Ipswich-based Queensland Times on Saturday 29 December 2007:


To Coffee Club Booval Fair who refused hot water to warm baby bottle, my friends and I who spend a lot in your shop won't be back. How mean can you get? - CAROLYN, Newtown


Indeed!

It would be fair to say that the founders of The Coffee Club in 1988, Emmanuel Kokoris and Emmanuel Drivas would be horrified to hear of this mother's dilemma at being refused such basic service at one of their outlets in Queensland.

Is this now official Company policy at all of their stores in Queensland?

The people of Queensland would like some answers.


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?
Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.

Aldi breaks Australian laws with impunity

The German-based multi-national Aldi should hang its corporate head in shame over the actions of its store manager at Riverlink in Ipswich.

Despite breaching State and Federal laws, the store manager refused to refund the purchase price of a defective Apple iPod Nano bought by a local teenage consumer, Alyssa Beasley of Walloon.

This was in spite of Aldi's 60-day refund policy with proof of purchase.

The Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Kerry Shine was forced to step in, making it clear that consumers are legally entitled to a refund, exchange or repair on a product which was faulty, did not perform as stated by the vendor or did not match the relevant product sample.

Which is all pretty simple stuff.

Aldi has been in Australia long enough to know what our State and Federal consumer laws say, yet they are apparently happy to skirt around those laws with their posturing and prevarication until they are forced to act by Queensland's Attorney-General who puts people first.


Do you have a contribution about a Queensland consumer issue involving
commercial exploitation, customer ripoffs or unacceptable business practices?

Email Queensland Consumer Watch with full details for the whole world to read.