ACCC Receipt App for Android and iOS *FREE*

Related Stores

ACCC

• 

  plasmapuff on 07/12/2012 - 19:10

  +1

  Besides from the website links to accc information, I struggle to understand how this is better than just taking a photo for your gallery or a clipboard app like evernote /catch notes…

  • 

    leeroys_dad on 07/12/2012 - 19:17

    also struggling

• 

  Lord Fart Bucket on 07/12/2012 - 19:13

  Reviews don't look promising:
  User - December 7, 2012 - Version 1.1
  My Items menu doesn't work

  The menu through which reminders and photos of receipts are stored doesn't work. HTC One V.

  User - December 5, 2012 - Samsung Galaxy S2 with version 1.1
  Dud

  no functionality, just the help file. On my g2s.

  A Google User - December 4, 2012 - Samsung Galaxy S2
  Cool.

  Saving you're receipts to phone. Awesome. Thanks.

  • 

    Tal_Shiar on 07/12/2012 - 19:18

    +2

    app reviews are like colon's for the most part imo

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 07/12/2012 - 19:38

      +1

      One reviewer says look at Vic Consumer affairs product instead. Irony its by the same developer.

• 

  leeroys_dad on 07/12/2012 - 19:17

  +1

  half of the retailers want original receipt anyway. how have the accc combat this?

  • 

    rekabkram on 07/12/2012 - 19:31

    -2

    I agree, how can you prove that it's a genuine receipt and not a doctored version which can be done quite easily.

    I know if I were a store owner then I wouldn't accept a photo of a receipt.

• 

  Moderator[Deactivated] on 07/12/2012 - 19:37

  always free so forum material

  • 

    wisdomtooth on 10/12/2012 - 09:43

    The discussion has taken a turn; perhaps it should also be tagged as 'Consumer Rights'.

• 

  nulled on 07/12/2012 - 19:37

  How is this a bargain ?

• 

  c64 on 07/12/2012 - 20:51

  is a photo of a receipt acceptable?

  • 

    wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 00:23

    +3

    if the accc says so, then it is. no buts and ifs, i reckon.

    • 

      rekabkram on 08/12/2012 - 00:58

      -1

      Put yourself if the position for the store manager/owner.

      Someone comes up to you with a photo of a receipt demanding a refund. Would you blindly accept that and refund without viewing the physical receipt? Without wanting to write on the receipt that a refund has been given?

      What's to stop that person from doctoring the receipt and altering the price paid on that product (especially in a shop that has recently had a sale).

      Not all company's have instantly available, detailed logs of every purchase and the individual customers that purchased them.

      This may be a strange situation but it's the exact kind of situation that you would need a receipt in.

      What if the exact same thing happened with a electronic device? The device is 16 months old, but that's no issue because someone could doctor a receipt on a photo to say that it's only 10 months old.

      A receipt is a proof of purchase. If you want to prove that you have purchased something on x day for y amount then keep the damn receipt.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 01:02

        Not defending the ACCC position, but they do have the authority to decide, no? (unless overturned in the courts, of course)

      • 

        Geewhizz on 08/12/2012 - 07:26

        +4

        Given that we are TOLD to take a copy of our receipts because the dockets will fade, a photo is no different to a 'scanned' copy which could just as easily be modified. It's easy enough for a business to look up a receipt in their system to check the price that was paid.

        They don't seem to have put a lot of thought into the fact that most stores are going to want a physical copy of the receipt for their own records though. I suspect a store would be well within their rights to tell you to go print it out.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 08:06

        +7

        Well, 'there you go':

        The Commonwealth Evidence Act abolished the 'original document rule', which required the production of the original document in writing. The Commonwealth Evidence Act permits evidence of the contents of a document to be given in one of a number of alternate ways. These ways include tendering:

        • the original document, which may be physical or digital;
        • a copy (physical or digital) of the document produced by a device (such as a photocopier or a computer) that reproduces the contents of documents;
        • a transcript of a document recording words (such as an audio tape or shorthand notes);or
        • a business record being a physical or digital extract, summary or copy of the document.

        http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/strategic-informati…

      • 

        Jackson on 11/12/2012 - 10:30

        Realistically the store should then print it for you. It's part of the cost of doing business. As someone who's been in business, it's in your interest to make your customers experience as good as possible. If they have a 'copy' of the receipt (digital or not) and you can't look it up, then you are majorly dropping the ball, after all, you can't expect every customer to have a system that satisfies your needs, YOU need to have the system that satisfies your needs if you're in business.

• 

  wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 08:06

  .

• 

  neosin on 08/12/2012 - 08:56

  +2

  To all the people complaining about this, haven't you ever shopped online?

  You can't just photoshop a receipt because there is generally a unique number on the receipt that needs to match the store's database.

  So no, you won't be able to photoshop your receipt and return your 2 yr old tv claiming you bought it 2 days ago.

  • 

    wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 09:35

    That's correct, as it would configure fraud:
    http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencin…

    @rekabkram: "Not all company's have instantly available, detailed logs of every purchase and the individual customers that purchased them."

    So the company needs to set out its refund or exchange process in line with the capability of its systems and procedures.

    • 

      wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 10:01

      +6

      In fact, retailers don't have the right to require shoppers to produce a receipt to complete an exchange or refund.
      (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1026241?pa…)

      It suffices to provide proof of purchase, which may include:
      * lay by agreement
      * confirmation or receipt number provided for a telephone or internet transaction
      * credit card statement
      * warranty card showing the supplier's or manufacturer's details and the date or amount of the purchase
      * serial or production number linked with the purchase on the supplier's or manufacturer's database.
      (http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/businessadvice/warranties/allbus/r…)

      And retailers can't refuse a refund either, if the sold good is faulty or not fit for the advertised use.
      (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1026241?pa…)

      And neither does the merchandise have to be in its original packaging.
      (http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Consumers/Buying_goods/Con…)

      And there is no time limit on a shoppers right to a refund either.
      (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1026241?pa…)

      As the yanks would say… "it's the law"!

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 08/12/2012 - 10:21

        Under the ACCC rules, Bunnings' refund policy, for instance is in fact illegal:

        BUNNINGS
        With or Without a Receipt
        • All goods for exchange must be unused, in original packaging and in saleable condition
        Without a Receipt
        • We can provide an Exchange Voucher or an exchange for 'like' goods.
        • Exchange Vouchers are valid for 14 days from time of issue and are redeemable in the store of issue only. These Vouchers are not redeemable for cash or Gift Cards.
        (http://www.bunnings.com.au/default_returns.aspx)

        And shoppers are not obliged to provide identification either, as they have the same rights as the purchaser if they received the goods as a gift.
        (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1026241?pa…)

        So all these are also illegal:

        MYERS
        • You may be asked to present photo identification so that we can record your name and verify your signature.
        (http://www.myer.com.au/help_returns-policy.aspx)

        REBEL SPORT
        • If you don’t have a receipt, we ask for and prefer to sight and record aphoto identification showing your name, address and signature.
        (http://www.rebelsport.com.au/eng/customerService/refundsandr…)

        and, of course…

        BUNNINGS
        • Positive identification will be required.
        (http://www.bunnings.com.au/default_returns.aspx)

      • 

        bigpallooka on 09/12/2012 - 17:21

        You are misinterpreting your own post. The quoted regulations are related to faulty products not just returns because you "changed your mind". The store has no obligation to refund or exchange a product that "works as advertised". So in fact some of those stores exceed the requirements of the law by offering exchange or refund of goods that you "changed your mind" over. That's why stores like Big W use there return policy as a point of differentiation. They greatly exceed their legal requirements for their customers benefit.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 09/12/2012 - 22:04

        -1

        That's correct, @bigpallooka, the consumer protection does not cover "change of mind", and is clear as it explicitly only extends to product faults and unsuitability to advertised use. The quoted store policies, however, e.g. Bunnings', make restrictions on refunds even in these cases, that are not in their authority to make, as they are covered under consumer protection. The requirements of identification are clearly illegal, as it should suffice to show that the product was bought at the store, regardless of who bought it. A faulty store-branded item, for instance, according to ACCC's rules, should be refunded any day, any time, packaged or not, used or not, to whomever brought it in, no questions asked (other than to ascertain that the product was faulty to start with, not broken after taken from the store). "It's the law!"

      • 

        DivZero on 09/12/2012 - 23:53

        I don't see how requiring ID is "clearly illegal". The store must accept particular documents for proof of purchase. The ACCC doesn't mention anything about ID.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 10/12/2012 - 09:12

        -1

        Exactly, @RickMeasham, the ACCC doesn't mention anything about ID, but it does explicitly say that someone who's received the product as a gift is equally covered by consumer protection. Hence the store cannot refuse a refund, if the product is faulty or unsuitable of course, if the consumer doesn't provide ID. That is illegal. As I said, the 'proof of purchase' is meant to prove who sold the product, not who bought it.

      • 

        bigpallooka on 10/12/2012 - 13:35

        +1

        Now you're just interpreting the regulations. There is no regulation to say a store can't ask for ID. It could be for any valid reason, such as to aid in the recovery of stolen goods or even to prove the refund was legitimately given. Just because no regulation exists allowing for ID doesn't mean there is a law prohibiting the request for ID. Has anyone ever refused to give ID? Did they then refuse to give a refund? The policy may be supported by other legislation but is it prohibited by any? Stores have some rights and obligations including preventing scamming of their own business. Just because you might find it onerous doesn't make it illegal.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 10/12/2012 - 14:29

        Don't think we were discussing onus, @bigpallooka, just ascertaining what those rights and obligations exactly are in Australia for both buyers and sellers. Refund for a product that is either faulty or unsuitable to advertised use is one such consumer right. A seller cannot refuse a refund on this basis if the consumer refuses to identify himself. It's the product that needs identification, not the buyer. The seller can, nonetheless, refuse entry to and evict anyone from a private establishment, as long as it doesn't constitute discrimination. It can also film and record whatever goes inside it.

        Identification is a serious civil liberty matter. This is the reason Australia does not have a national ID card. Not even the police can demand identification, unless you are:
        * driving a car;
        * involved in a car accident;
        * suspected of committing an offence on public transport;
        * under 18 and suspected of drinking alcohol in a public place; or
        * suspected of being involved in or witnessing a serious crime.
        http://www.lawstuff.org.au/nsw_law/topics/criminal-law/polic…

      • 

        m0nkeycheese on 11/12/2012 - 00:20

        Bunnings has an awesome return policy! I know coz it have to process all that returned crap. Sometimes I wish they didnt have such a great policy LOL

• 

  jwb1981 on 09/12/2012 - 00:41

  If you pay by credit card / efpos, doesn't that usually have the last few digits on the receipt (usually you get 2 receipts, one of proof of purchase and the other to say the transaction and it says 'Customer Copy') ? If it does, have the last 4 digits of the card… If you can show you have that credit card on the photo..
  That's enough proof…

• 

  wisdomtooth on 09/12/2012 - 08:25

  The proof is that the merchandise was bought at that store, not necessarily that you bought it. So any doc issued by the store singularly identifying the product, or any evidence that it was bought there ought to suffice. Store-branded goods, for instance, require no further proof of purchase (unless the store wishes to claim they were stolen, but then that's a police matter).

  • 

    bigpallooka on 10/12/2012 - 14:28

    +1

    You have brought up many valid points but your interpretation is very narrow and the mixing of refund, exchange, proof of purchase etc. is disingenuous. Stores have obligations regarding how their systems may be abused unlawfully both to their shareholders and the public. There is a whole criminal genre called "refund theft" and the stories abound. Possession of a receipt (or facsimile) engenders some ownership on the possessor but you would have to consider any store that hands over money without attempting to identify who they are turning it over to as negligent. It may be good corporate citizenship on their part or simple pre-emptive, self protective cynicism for the time they are proven to have refunded stolen goods. Either way it's just one of the many onerous tasks operating a business in the modern world requires. If you feel that it is beyond their purview to ask for ID then refuse and under your interpretative they should still refund, exchange etc. If they don't then by all means explain to them the error of their ways. I guarantee the recipient of your explanation will either have no clue at all ("Hey. I just work here!") or they will have a different interpretation. Either way, it's your right to question. Good luck.

    • 

      wisdomtooth on 10/12/2012 - 14:45

      "Hey. I just work here!"
      Absolutely. This conversation is to be had with their legal dept, not the shop attendant.

      It may be good corporate citizenship on their part or simple pre-emptive, self protective cynicism for the time they are proven to have refunded stolen goods.
      It may be good corporate citizenship, but it is certainly not legal. I'm not discussing what's right, only what's lawful. And that it is not. The ACCC regulations clearly indicate gift recipients have equal consumer rights as buyers. And gift giving need not be recorded.

      I understand your concern with refund theft, however. The seller may prevent it simply by contacting the buyer before processing the refund. Nowhere does the ACCC say that refunds must be given instantly. It is reasonable to expect the seller needs time to verify that the product is indeed faulty, and not damaged after delivery. In that interim, it can easily contact the buyer, if it was an electronic or credit card transaction. If it was a cash transaction, no identification would be possible in any case, unless taken at the time of purchase.

      • 

        bigpallooka on 10/12/2012 - 18:40

        Never argue with a man who has google and isn't afraid to misuse it right? Cherry picking legal statements that you somehow think support your particular agenda (which I can only interpret as "the big chains are out ta getcha") doesn't change the facts.

        There are very few exact and explicit "You can't do this:" statements in the regulations. There is in fact much qualifying language and inference regarding what is acceptable.

        Do some stores push the boundaries? Yes. Are any of those you quoted as illegal actually explicitly stated as illegal? No.

        When Bunnings says "exchange" they are clearly referring to those taking advantage of their generous offer to take back "change of mind" goods or gifts (which they are not obliged to do) not faulty products. They have a separate policy for faulty returns which you failed to highlight except to misrepresent. They say they "may require proof of purchase and DO NOT say they require ID. They may ask. You can always say NO.

        This is typical of your statements. Separately they seem valid but they are misleading when combined or examined without prejudice.

        You should have left it to your very helpful links for others to read.

        Peddling your misinterpretation and opinion as fact is just going to lead to members here embarrassing themselves the next time they make unreasonable demands from a store on your say-so. Just because a store wants to protect itself from serial "return theft" doesn't mean they are conspiring to "invade your privacy".

        We need strong consumer protection laws and most of us who frequent bargain sites want it hassle free as well. Businesses may want an advantage and for some their point of differentiation is price, for some it's their service, for some it's their exchange/refund policy. If you think any of these policies are illegal you would be much better off reporting them to the ACCC or Fair Trading Department in your state than speculating here where you are just one google expert subject to the applause or derision of other google experts.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 10/12/2012 - 19:07

        -1

        @bigpallooka, you sound upset. I hope it wasn't my posting here that upset you.

        True, I'm no more of an expert than anyone here with access to freely available public information, and willing to exercise some logic.

        Apologies for failing to highlight Bunnings' "separate policy for faulty returns"; indeed they do have one. As a minor point, the following statement is still illegal:

        "We recommend you retain your receipt, as we may require proof that you purchased the product from us."

        As I have been indicating, the seller is entitled to require proof that the product was purchased from his store, but not necessarily by the person demanding the exchange. I take your point about refund theft, and perhaps in this regard the ACCC should be more clear. It says:

        "If you have a problem with your goods but received them as a gift, you have the same rights as the person who purchased them."

        and then subsequently:

        "That is, you are covered by the consumer guarantees so you can ask the seller to fix the problem with your goods."

        Same rights would entitle any gift recipients to a refund on a faulty or unsuitable product. But then it says what you can do is ask for the product to be fixed or (presumably) exchanged.

      • 

        bigpallooka on 10/12/2012 - 21:06

        LOL. Cute deflection. I give up. You're determined to continue mixing exchange and refund, non-faulty and faulty and various other different scenarios in some vain attempt to prove a non-point. Good luck with trying to get the ACCC to support your attempt to force any store to accept your Xmas gift return without proof of purchase and ID if they choose not too. I'll be interested to see how you go with that. I'm tolerably sure it will take them considerable time to help you sort out your confusion of ideas and convince you that it actually is up to the store to decide how they accept "change of mind" refunds.

      • 

        wisdomtooth on 10/12/2012 - 21:29

        -1

        Well, I thank you for going along with me this far on this discussion, @bigpallooka. I've learned much from this exchange. Merry Christmas to you too.

      • 

        bigpallooka on 11/12/2012 - 01:07

        I haven't gone along anywhere with you. You don't seem to have learned anything. The main thrust of your comments are that stores have no right to refuse to exchange or refund or require proof of purchase or ID. You don't differentiate between "change of mind" or "faulty items" in fact you constantly quote policy and regulation of both indiscriminately and at cross purposes. Your own link to the ACCC clearly says:

        • Sellers can have signs that state ‘No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind’

        • What if I change my mind? Can I get a refund?
          No. The consumer guarantees do not require a seller to give you a refund if you change your mind and decide that you don’t like or need the goods or discover that the goods are cheaper elsewhere.

        Therefore any store policy is at the stores discretion providing it doesn't contravene other laws.

        Stop trying to demonise stores for their completely legal and often generous return and exchange policies.