Tesco misprices discussion area part 4

-=Mr-J=-

bear1 wrote:

This is also a reason we ask customers to fill out their details for a refund where i work, to check the staff are not doing refund fraud. But i often have customers refuse to give their details which is fine as it is their choice, it just does not look good for the member of staff doing the refund!

Not tried it, but it would be interesting to see what reaction you get when confronted with a request for your details if you ask "what is Tesco's privacy policy regarding this information?" - a lot of blank stares I would imagine

-=Mr-J=-

zorber wrote:

Yes it is stupid. Although our chains has started trials on electronic Sel. Which mean the sel (lcd display)will always show the price the computers are charging and the only time it will get it wrong is if the wrong product is put in front of the wrong sel. I also beleive other chains are trialing this technology.
so in a few years time R & R will be obsolete

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe manufacturer packaging prices, where cheaper, override a retailers price. Thought I had read this somewhere.

An example could be the x24 coke packs. Diet was marked £6.95, but ordinary was marked £6.75. An across the board eSEL for coke might read £6.95, hence an overcharge and respective r+r.

-=Mr-J=-

damski wrote:

Well the member of security staff I was with at the time just laughed about it and stated that it was just some members off staff got annoyed when customers knew their rights.

He removed the photo, folded it up and used it as note paper, so it wont exist anymore

If I hadnt been in the security office I wouldnt have known it was there anyway, I wouldnt be suprised if this goes on all over

Except his 'Note' read 'He Knows!!!'

Greyhound_2

When Morrisons took over Safeway they found that Safeway were already using these lcd SEL'S and found they had problems mainly the batteries kept running out so they stopped working and being LCD one lcd block could fail and the price would appear to be different ie 7 becoming 1 - these were just two of the problems - so they immediatly binned them!!!

Greyhound_2

-=Mr-J=- wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe manufacturer packaging prices, where cheaper, override a retailers price. Thought I had read this somewhere.

An example could be the x24 coke packs. Diet was marked £6.95, but ordinary was marked £6.75. An across the board eSEL for coke might read £6.95, hence an overcharge and respective r+r.

Not sure if that would be correct however the supermarkets can and do request "non flashed packs" the supermarkets do have a lot of power all the big manufactures provide non flashed packs and lately even magazines have got into the act by providing there mags without the free DVD Loaded was an example when they gave away an 18 rated DVD the supermarkets threatned not to stock it so they simply supplied copy's without the disc!!

Odd_Fellow

-=Mr-J=- wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe manufacturer packaging prices, where cheaper, override a retailers price. Thought I had read this somewhere.

An example could be the x24 coke packs. Diet was marked £6.95, but ordinary was marked £6.75. An across the board eSEL for coke might read £6.95, hence an overcharge and respective r+r.

The laws governing price marking / overcharging is not affected by this. Hence, the lowest price displayed in store for the item must be charged. It's immaterial as to how the price is advertised.

marge_b._simpson

Odd_Fellow wrote:

The laws governing price marking / overcharging is not affected by this. Hence, the lowest price displayed in store for the item must be charged. It's immaterial as to how the price is advertised.

Hi.

I thought you might be interested in how the people at Tesco HO see that matter.

According to my correspondence, following a dispute where two SEL's were displayed, one much higher than the other ( the price I was charged )

.......according to our legal team - as the correct price was on display then the overcharge policy does not apply

They omit to tell me why they had two on display.

Does anyone know for sure the real law on this. Lots of people have strong views about it, but are we legally right?

-=Mr-J=-

Odd_Fellow wrote:

The laws governing price marking / overcharging is not affected by this. Hence, the lowest price displayed in store for the item must be charged. It's immaterial as to how the price is advertised.

That would make sense, and tie-in to the in-store r+r wording of on the shelf or the product.

sandybrag

marge_b._simpson wrote:

Hi.


.......according to our legal team - as the correct price was on display then the overcharge policy does not apply

They omit to tell me why they had two on display.

Hmmmm, I think Tesco are a law unto themselves here dont you? I see no wording in the R+R policy along these lines, do you?.

Tesco seem to be applying this policy when it suits them, ie when the value of the goods is no more than a few pounds.

They are on very shaky ground as they are applying it to some things and not others in this instance. What do you reckon?

-=Mr-J=-

marge_b._simpson wrote:

Does anyone know for sure the real law on this. Lots of people have strong views about it, but are we legally right?

Took some finding but Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 prohibits a business from giving a misleading price indication.

Section 20 (1) states that
'a person shall be guilty of an offence, if in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any means whatsoever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the price at which any…goods…are available.'

Giving two prices for the same thing is pretty misleading.

So, Ms Simpson, Mr T just pee'd all over your Statutory Rights.