Shopping Discussion

LCBO return policy changed

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 29th, 2021 8:54 pm
[OP]
Deal Addict
Sep 13, 2007
4633 posts
5831 upvotes
GTA

LCBO return policy changed

LCBO are finally accepting returns again after a suspension since Christmas Eve, supposedly over covid concerns. I noticed sign in-store they are allowing returns on purchases made as far back as November, but I don't remember the exact date

New policy is ALL returns must have receipt and you must present ID.

They used to allow returns without receipt, refund in form of gift card. No more

The only way you can return without receipt is on a defective product.....so it seems they prefer you open that bottle you don't want, pour out a half glass, take it back and claim it tastes off to get your money back
Last edited by Kfox on Mar 20th, 2021 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
39 replies
Deal Expert
Feb 7, 2017
20931 posts
19209 upvotes
Eastern Ontario
Lol, returns ... what’s that ?

I can count on one hand the times I have done a return @ The LCBO in 40+ years.

Buy booze, drink booze, buy more booze
Smiling Face With Sunglasses
Deal Fanatic
Aug 29, 2011
7661 posts
4573 upvotes
Mississauga
I took advantage of their return policy only once years ago after my wedding when I returned several unopened bottles of liquor (we held the liquor license for our reception and had to supply our own booze).
Deal Expert
Jan 7, 2002
25152 posts
21612 upvotes
Waterloo, ON
mrweather wrote: I took advantage of their return policy only once years ago after my wedding when I returned several unopened bottles of liquor (we held the liquor license for our reception and had to supply our own booze).
So you served wine at your wedding that you wouldn't drink yourselves? <just kidding, of course>

It never occurred to me that if we bought several bottles of something and didn't like the taste, we could return the unopened ones. That we could also return the opened bottle is a real revelation. No wonder prices are so high at the LCBO.
veni, vidi, Visa
Deal Expert
User avatar
Sep 1, 2005
16738 posts
11483 upvotes
Markham
If that's true, it really sucks IMO. If it's sealed and untampered, why is there an issue?

Perhaps they should sticker returned booze and sell it at a 10% discount (they would allow you to return and also apply a 20% discount). The sticker can be used for "tampered" tracking for fraud perhaps. The 10% "margin" discount can be considered a "handling fee" intuitively.

Why would ppl need to do this?
> I don't drink much wine so when ppl BYOB one or gift me a bottle, it just sits. I'd rather return to gift card and use it to buy beer (periodically) or some harder alcohol for cooking (eg vermouth which I sub for wine in cooking) or perhaps some rum (desserts) or some liquer (sipping/add to desserts).

This is another example of why we need to allow private retailers (grocery, convenience stores etc) to sell liquor. LCBO just struck another nail into their coffin as to why they shouldn't exist with a monopoly.
We're all bozos on the bus until we find a way to express ourselves...

Failure is always an option...just not the preferred one!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Sep 1, 2005
16738 posts
11483 upvotes
Markham
If that's true, it really sucks IMO. If it's sealed and untampered, why is there an issue?

Perhaps they should sticker returned booze and sell it at a 10% discount (they would allow you to return and also apply a 20% discount). The sticker can be used for "tampered" tracking for fraud perhaps. The 10% "margin" discount can be considered a "handling fee" intuitively.

Why would ppl need to do this?
> I don't drink much wine so when ppl BYOB one or gift me a bottle, it just sits. I'd rather return to gift card and use it to buy beer (periodically) or some harder alcohol for cooking (eg vermouth which I sub for wine in cooking) or perhaps some rum (desserts) or some liquer (sipping/add to desserts).

This is another example of why we need to allow private retailers (grocery, convenience stores etc) to sell liquor. LCBO just struck another nail into their coffin as to why they shouldn't exist with a monopoly.
We're all bozos on the bus until we find a way to express ourselves...

Failure is always an option...just not the preferred one!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5622 posts
5824 upvotes
GTA
gr8dlr wrote: This is another example of why we need to allow private retailers (grocery, convenience stores etc) to sell liquor. LCBO just struck another nail into their coffin as to why they shouldn't exist with a monopoly.
Personally I have more of an issue with The Beer Store. For the longest time I thought they were government owned, but in fact the Big Brewers own and control it, keeping products (for years) and selection from appearing anywhere outside their 4 walls. Things are better now but it would be nice to buy smaller batches like 6 packs in grocery stores, and a real push for diverse products rather than this buck-a-beer foolishness. Once that battle has been won, liquor should be next.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Expert
Jan 7, 2002
25152 posts
21612 upvotes
Waterloo, ON
BernardRyder wrote: I thought they were government owned, but in fact the Big Brewers own and control it
Yup. Until recent years, when beer was finally allowed to be sold in grocery stores, The Beer Store was a government sanctioned beer distribution monopoly owned by an oligopoly of foreign brewers.
veni, vidi, Visa
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
24123 posts
9578 upvotes
Socially Distanced
bylo wrote: Yup. Until recent years, when beer was finally allowed to be sold in grocery stores, The Beer Store was a government sanctioned beer distribution monopoly owned by an oligopoly of foreign brewers.
In the Rogers/Shaw thread people are arguing we need more foreign ownership in Canada.
We should decide which one we really want.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Expert
Feb 7, 2017
20931 posts
19209 upvotes
Eastern Ontario
bylo wrote: Yup. Until recent years, when beer was finally allowed to be sold in grocery stores, The Beer Store was a government sanctioned beer distribution monopoly owned by an oligopoly of foreign brewers.
Quentin5 wrote: In the Rogers/Shaw thread people are arguing we need more foreign ownership in Canada.
We should decide which one we really want.
The Beer Store ... CAN TAKE A HIKE

I don’t shop there anymore cuz of foreign ownership ... and their control over beer

The Beer Store ... now is just the Bottle Depot for us

Since the LCBO got heavily into the beer game, that’s where I shop for beer

Esp so when there has also been a Loyalty Program (AIrMiles up until now)

That also kept me from buying beer at the grocery store ... no rewards, and less selection.

As of April 1st, I may change my strategy and buy more beer with my groceries

Although the LCBO now by far has the best selection of the world of beer and Cdn Craft Beers.

I actually enjoy buying beer now in Ontario ... more than ever before. Always up to trying something new
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
24123 posts
9578 upvotes
Socially Distanced
PointsHubby wrote: The Beer Store ... CAN TAKE A HIKE

I don’t shop there anymore cuz of foreign ownership ... and their control over beer

The Beer Store ... now is just the Bottle Depot for us

Since the LCBO got heavily into the beer game, that’s where I shop for beer

Esp so when there has also been a Loyalty Program (AIrMiles up until now)

That also kept me from buying beer at the grocery store ... no rewards, and less selection.

As of April 1st, I may change my strategy and buy more beer with my groceries

Although the LCBO now by far has the best selection of the world of beer and Cdn Craft Beers.

I actually enjoy buying beer now in Ontario ... more than ever before. Always up to trying something new
Okay, so feel free to explain here why foreign ownership will not fix the Rogers problem.
rogers-seeks-buy-shaw-20-4-billion-deal ... t-2451869/
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Expert
User avatar
Sep 1, 2005
16738 posts
11483 upvotes
Markham
Quentin5 wrote: In the Rogers/Shaw thread people are arguing we need more foreign ownership in Canada.
We should decide which one we really want.
The reason we don't have more FOREIGN in telecom is partially because of the CRTC. [Other reason is population size vs geography).
eg The Canadian telecoms don't want to invest money into building more infrastructure because CRTC can just force you to sell/rent your investment for whatever they want and they can dictate it whenever they want.

FAIR = Investment means money and if you invest it you should be able to sell it as you please for whatever the market will bear. Gov't should not be able to force you to let someone use your lines.

Foreign telecoms see this and say "we're not stupid to go and invest in Canada" seeing as how the CRTC works.
Eg. Bell pays for rights to televise Superbowl and the CRTC says you have to run the US ads instead of allowing them to sell Cdn ads.
We're all bozos on the bus until we find a way to express ourselves...

Failure is always an option...just not the preferred one!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
24123 posts
9578 upvotes
Socially Distanced
gr8dlr wrote: The reason we don't have more FOREIGN in telecom is partially because of the CRTC. [Other reason is population size vs geography).
eg The Canadian telecoms don't want to invest money into building more infrastructure because CRTC can just force you to sell/rent your investment for whatever they want and they can dictate it whenever they want.

FAIR = Investment means money and if you invest it you should be able to sell it as you please for whatever the market will bear. Gov't should not be able to force you to let someone use your lines.

Foreign telecoms see this and say "we're not stupid to go and invest in Canada" seeing as how the CRTC works.
Eg. Bell pays for rights to televise Superbowl and the CRTC says you have to run the US ads instead of allowing them to sell Cdn ads.
My point is not to argue that thread here, just that we should decide whether we approve of foreign ownership or we don't.
The grass is not always greener on the other side and we can't have it both ways.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5622 posts
5824 upvotes
GTA
PointsHubby wrote: The Beer Store ... CAN TAKE A HIKE

I don’t shop there anymore cuz of foreign ownership ... and their control over beer

The Beer Store ... now is just the Bottle Depot for us

Since the LCBO got heavily into the beer game, that’s where I shop for beer

Esp so when there has also been a Loyalty Program (AIrMiles up until now)

That also kept me from buying beer at the grocery store ... no rewards, and less selection.

As of April 1st, I may change my strategy and buy more beer with my groceries

Although the LCBO now by far has the best selection of the world of beer and Cdn Craft Beers.

I actually enjoy buying beer now in Ontario ... more than ever before. Always up to trying something new
Actually you're right. I do buy more beer at the LCBO than The Beer Store. It feels like it's been so long I forgot I guess.
It also has a more diverse selection of beer, or at least it seems to compared to The Beer Store. They afford more shelf space to diverse types. I see the Big Brewers, but also lots of foreign and craft selection, depending on location of course. Small town LCBO's tend to have a glut of cheap dock beers, but go figure that's the market.
As far as beer, the LCBO is doing things right IMO.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5622 posts
5824 upvotes
GTA
Quentin5 wrote: My point is not to argue that thread here, just that we should decide whether we approve of foreign ownership or we don't.
The grass is not always greener on the other side and we can't have it both ways.
The Devil is always in the details. What's good for one type of business might not apply to all other businesses. Privatization, when done properly, can work in some cases. That doesn't mean privatization is a solution for everything, same for government control, foreign investment, etc.
I'm not going to argue the LCBO is perfect, but to me it's doing good by beer drinkers. Of course, their mandate should be doing good by liquor drinkers...
c'mon get happy!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Sep 1, 2005
16738 posts
11483 upvotes
Markham
I don't care the Beer Store is owned by conglomerate of beer stores as long as Gov't doesn't give them a monopoly or restrict others from competing which is what they did. There's still a problem because they've only allowed large Grocery retailers to now sell some beer.

As far as I'm concerned pretty much any Govt control in pretty much anything only leads to inefficiencies.
We're all bozos on the bus until we find a way to express ourselves...

Failure is always an option...just not the preferred one!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5622 posts
5824 upvotes
GTA
gr8dlr wrote: I don't care the Beer Store is owned by conglomerate of beer stores as long as Gov't doesn't give them a monopoly or restrict others from competing which is what they did. There's still a problem because they've only allowed large Grocery retailers to now sell some beer.

As far as I'm concerned pretty much any Govt control in pretty much anything only leads to inefficiencies.
The government is profiting by keeping it that way. They let big business run the show, and still keep some fingers in the till. If they outright run it like the LCBO, then there's more overhead and inefficinrncies. Pretty smart for them, which is why it's been allowed to run this way for decades and under all 3 major political parties.
Drop that minor control, drop that money. Which government has the actual cojones to do that? Anyway, no solution is perfect or will make everyone happy. Well, no solution without a lot of thought and investment.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
24123 posts
9578 upvotes
Socially Distanced
BernardRyder wrote: The Devil is always in the details. What's good for one type of business might not apply to all other businesses. Privatization, when done properly, can work in some cases. That doesn't mean privatization is a solution for everything, same for government control, foreign investment, etc.
I'm not going to argue the LCBO is perfect, but to me it's doing good by beer drinkers. Of course, their mandate should be doing good by liquor drinkers...
My point is the opposite is argued becasue the grass always looks greener on the other side.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Expert
User avatar
Sep 1, 2005
16738 posts
11483 upvotes
Markham
BernardRyder wrote: The government is profiting by keeping it that way. They let big business run the show, and still keep some fingers in the till. If they outright run it like the LCBO, then there's more overhead and inefficinrncies. Pretty smart for them, which is why it's been allowed to run this way for decades and under all 3 major political parties.
Drop that minor control, drop that money. Which government has the actual cojones to do that? Anyway, no solution is perfect or will make everyone happy. Well, no solution without a lot of thought and investment.
It's not really true the Gov't makes more money this way...that's an argument used by ppl which isn't true unless the Gov't makes the underlying product ie beer/booze in this case. Gov't ultimately only makes tax revenue (on the sale of the product and other business (profits, employee, property etc) related taxes).

UNION's (who are a voting block) are one the biggest reason the Gov't doesn't want to challenge this monopoly.
Note: when you start a fight with pretty much any union, all the other union "brothers" join the fight. When I say they join the fight it's happening in the background...eg on the picket lines, on Queen street protesting, at the voting poll etc.
We're all bozos on the bus until we find a way to express ourselves...

Failure is always an option...just not the preferred one!

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)