Help! Tesco coupon policy? I've been banned!

hobo28 wrote:

What Igloo and many of you are doing here although not illegal is morally wrong. Would we dream of going into our local convenience store and handing over £20 worth of vouchers for £26 worth of goods without having bought those products? Of course not!

I mean, lets say that I bought a Dyson Vac from Tesco's and paid for it using £200 of Pamper's vouchers. Is anyone going to try and argue that what I have done is perfectly fine?

WHY is it morally wrong?? The point is, Igloo made an offer to the Tesco cashier to make partial payment for her shopping with vouchers. The cashier accepted them as part payment for the shopping, which she has been trained to do by Tesco. Tesco have confirmed to Igloo and to several other people that they are happy to take manufacturer coupons for products that the customer hasn't actually purchased - so how is it morally wrong when Tesco have invited the customer to use the vouchers??

Like I said in my previous post, we are all here at MSE because we are looking for ways to save money - personally I never ever use coupons - purely because I am too damn lazy to get off my fat backside and go and find any - but if I was a true moneysaver I'd be out there clipping coupons like it was going out of fashion.

What IS morally wrong, however, is for Tesco to not have a stringent policy in force for the acceptance of vouchers. When the terms of their policy apparently differ from cashier to cashier, is the customer expected to be psychic and know what they will and won't accept? It's also morally wrong for Tesco staff to intimidate a customer and her two small children when she has taken advise from the Tesco Head Office on the policy and had asked the cashier which of the vouchers she had could be used.

hobo28 wrote:

By doing this, you expect Tesco's to either:

1) Subsidise your purchase by accepting so many vouchers and take it on the chin.
2) Submit those vouchers to the manufacturer whose product you did not buy and therefore wouldn't the company then be commiting deception themselves?

1) Tescos do not subsidise anyone's purchase when vouchers are used - they redeem them with the manufacturer and get every penny (and probably more) back.
2) What Tesco do with the vouchers after they've accepted them from the customer is down to Tesco and shouldn't be any concern of the customer.

hobo28 wrote:

Luckily only a small minority of people abuse this system and Tesco's in their pursuit of the customer allow people to get away with this. If more people did this, the vouchers would soon stop.

If Tesco accept the vouchers as part payment for your goods, how are you abusing the system? No-one is forcing them to accept vouchers - their cashiers are the representatives of their company at the point that the shopping is paid for so if they accept coupons then the company has effectively said 'yes, we will accept these coupons as part payment for your goods'.

hobo28 wrote:

As for all the rubbish about false imprisonment/legal action etc. Get a grip! As far as I can tell no-one has physically stopped her from leaving. They "invited" her to the office, at no point was she physically restrained.

How is it rubbish? It seems very much to me that Igloo was made to go to the office against her will, and then was prevented from leaving until she'd handed over her clubcard - that's false imprisonment, and even the Police have told her she has a case for complaint.

hobo28 wrote:

Am I the only one to think that Tesco's acted perfectly within their rights? They did warn Igloo and by changing her habits and then when challenged, tried to wriggle out of it by giving all the goods back, it would indicate to me that she understands that what she is/was doing is wrong. Its private property so they can ban anyone they please.

If you'd read Igloo's comments throughout this thread you would understand that after she was spoken to by the customer services manager previously she sought advice from Tesco Head Office, who spelt out their policy on accepting coupons to her. Armed with that advice she then made a point of using cashiers instead of the self-service till, and ASKED which vouchers she was able to use. I don't see that she tried to wriggle out of anything - personally I would probably have done the same in her shoes, despite the fact that SHE DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG.

hobo28 wrote:

Bad customer service is at best what they could be accused of. From a company's point of view, they've lost a customer who they made very little if any money from anyway.

On the contrary, someone further up the thread says that Tesco generally get more than the face value of the voucher from the manufacturer. They're making plenty of money out of her. As for bad customer service, sorry, but I think you're having a laugh ...

Kate

PS: And your position at Tesco is what, precisely?

hobo28 wrote:

Actually, here I think you are right but it would be perfectly within my rights as the shopkeeper to ban the "customer".


How can that be considered imprisonment? Did they physically restrain her or lock the door? We'd be able to build much cheaper prisons if all we needed to do was to tell prisoner's they were not allowed to leave!

My point is based on the law of the land I'm afraid not just an opinion. You do not have to physically restrain someone in order to detain or imprison them.

At what point would you think that a woman with two small children in her care would be intimidated by two adult males when her specific wishes are being denied her? that is the point at which false imprisonment took place!

katiepops wrote:

On the contrary, someone further up the thread says that Tesco generally get more than the face value of the voucher from the manufacturer. They're making plenty of money out of her. As for bad customer service, sorry, but I think you're having a laugh ...

Kate

PS: And your position at Tesco is what, precisely?

In most cases the handling fee for each coupon is 1p it used to vary quite a lot but has gradually been standardised to this amount, handling fees were often based on the value of the coupon in the past thus a 30p off ketchup coupon might warrant a 2p handling allowance and a £4.99 coupon off dishwasher detergent carry a handling fee of 31p (these are actual incidences by the way) nowadays almost all carry a handling allowance of 1p though, even so that is a substantial amount of money over and above the total amount that Tesco redeem each year and only a fraction of the amount they expend in actually handling them, I would expect though under current circumstances that cost is rising daily.

Would we dream of going into our local convenience store and handing over £20 worth of vouchers for £26 worth of goods without having bought those products? Of course not!

If they had a clearly stated policy, which had been going on since the 1970s, of accepting vouchers for things we hadn't bought - yes!

I doubt that very much. If Tesco had adopted their current voucher policy out of sheer altruism, you might be right. However, I suspect it has more to do with making the administration of a very profitable promotion as easy as possible. Tesco got to be the nations biggest and most profitable retailer by recognising what does and does not make money. If they do something, it's because it makes money. There is no other reason.