Tesco Misprices Discussion area part 5

spa2k

ben500 wrote:

but I do however feel the need to point out when spa takes the opportunity to deliberately (or otherwise ) MISLEAD people who have fallen foul of Tesco [STRIKE]extortion [/STRIKE]overcharges.

Please back up these almost slanderous accusations with evidence.....

ben500

As for "trolling" check back through ALL the threads and you will find my viewpoint has been consistent in that you shoul ALWAYS report misprices to Trading Standards whether or not you receive r&r, r&r is Tesco's method of circumventing the law regarding the labelling and pricing of goods by BRIBING customers to not do so in order to continue fleecing the general public, so just to clarify: I advocate that each and every time you are overcharged by ANY company you should report it to Trading Standards as these companies rely on you "not being bothered" to do so in order to continue the practice.

I hope that clears up my stance on r&r and overpricing as practiced by many retailers not just Tesco.

ben500

spa2k wrote:

Ben, it is lovely to meet someone who knows the policies of a company better than those who work for them. It must be wonderful to have more knowledge than anyone else and especially those who are actually in posession of the official refund policy documentation. Please come into the stores and help us to interpret the aforementioned documents in a way that suits your own needs at all times.

The op was not charged more than the advertised price....the advertised price was the one which scanned through the till. A discount should then have been applied which in this instance wasn't. No overcharge, simply a non application of a manual discount.

I would seriously suggest that you attend a boxing club or somewhere that may give you an outlet as you seem particularly het up with regards to Tesco, perhaps an alternative outlet may bring down your stress levels.:D

Once again let me explain for you as you are so obviously blinded by loyalty to grasp that in order to avoid falling foul of the law in instances where more than one price is displayed the lowest price MUST be charged, to say "It's not my fault it's the checkout operator's fault" is no defence whatsoever, and despite your attempts to cloud the issue the op fulfilled ALL criteria to expect to receive the item at the advertised price which was £20 BELOW what she was charged!

It is exactly your kind of attitude which customers are suffering from up and down the country!

Legislation states that price indications must be CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS, Advertising legislation states that an advertisement must not mislead and must display ANY qualification criteria that excludes a particular condition. You will note that the instore promotional material relating to mobile phones does NOT state "Unless one of our staff does not notice the correct price for this item"

ben500

spa2k wrote:

Please back up these almost slanderous accusations with evidence.....

In the event my statements were inaccurate they would be LIBELOUS and not slanderous, wrong again spa.
If you feel my statements are libelous feel free to sue me, perhaps even get your employer to do so.

ben500

Clasics wrote:

I would also imagine the fact that the CS rep 'got away' with just issuing a refund of the overprice would be 'flagged up' on the system in some way (a different code to the full R&R?) and they may get praise from 'on high' thereby perpetuating the dishonest practice?

Not necessarily from Head office but from management regionally and locally as they are targetted on such things so there is an incentive for them to minimise such instances. Yes it goes without saying that a cs who successfully worms their way out of r&r is going to feel more confident next time he or she screws a member of public

spa2k

ben500 wrote:

Once again let me explain for you as you are so obviously blinded by loyalty to grasp that in order to avoid falling foul of the law in instances where more than one price is displayed the lowest price MUST be charged, to say "It's not my fault it's the checkout operator's fault" is no defence whatsoever, and despite your attempts to cloud the issue the op fulfilled ALL criteria to expect to receive the item at the advertised price which was £20 BELOW what she was charged!

It is exactly your kind of attitude which customers are suffering from up and down the country!

Legislation states that price indications must be CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS, Advertising legislation states that an advertisement must not mislead and must display ANY qualification criteria that excludes a particular condition. You will note that the instore promotional material relating to mobile phones does NOT state "Unless one of our staff does not notice the correct price for this item"

What exactly are customers suffering from that is caused by my attitude?

The labelling was / is perfectly clear. This particular product said 179.99 and that is what is charged. There was no overcharge. The fact is that a discount that should have been manually applied was not. This discount was then offered retrospectively.

You can harp on all you like with regards to what about the thousands of customers that dont notice but lets face facts, most people know roughly how much their shopping bill is going to come to - whatever shop they are in.

When picking up a mobile phone, particularly one that has a discount of £20 applied to it, unless you have money to burn one is going to check the price and if they have not had the relative discount applied they will question it.

To be honest ben, your mantra, however many fancy words you choose to dress it up in is getting a little tiresome. I understand you are not the biggest fan of Tesco and I accept that. I have consistently said that in no way are Tesco perfect and am often helping others privately (references can be provided) when asked. Blinded by loyalty is one thing I am not - in no way shape or form.

spa2k

ben500 wrote:

In the event my statements were inaccurate they would be LIBELOUS and not slanderous, wrong again spa.
If you feel my statements are libelous feel free to sue me, perhaps even get your employer to do so.

ok, time to put a stop to this. Your posts ARE trolling, often pedantic and quite honestly repetitive to the point of boredom.

I refuse to be drawn into your childishness any more.

Another one for the ignore list.

ben500

spa2k wrote:

What exactly are customers suffering from that is caused by my attitude?

The labelling was / is perfectly clear. This particular product said 179.99 and that is what is charged. There was no overcharge. The fact is that a discount that should have been manually applied was not. This discount was then offered retrospectively.

You can harp on all you like with regards to what about the thousands of customers that dont notice but lets face facts, most people know roughly how much their shopping bill is going to come to - whatever shop they are in.

When picking up a mobile phone, particularly one that has a discount of £20 applied to it, unless you have money to burn one is going to check the price and if they have not had the relative discount applied they will question it.

To be honest ben, your mantra, however many fancy words you choose to dress it up in is getting a little tiresome. I understand you are not the biggest fan of Tesco and I accept that. I have consistently said that in no way are Tesco perfect and am often helping others privately (references can be provided) when asked. Blinded by loyalty is one thing I am not - in no way shape or form.

Yes excactly my point the pricing was clear the op should have paid £20 less having fulfilled the criteria of the offer, having established that criteria was met and the price NOT adhered to then an OFFENCE has been committed it's as simple as that, but as I said you are blinkered by loyalty and UNABLE or unwilling to accept that. The op doesn't need to take my word for it a simple enquiry to Trading Standards will confirm this, try making one yourself spa!

The difference between the advice given by myself and yours is that in my case further clarification and action is suggested, your advice simply recommends the consumer to walk away with their tail between their legs and accept being ripped off without any further clarification or action, I can only assume you are blinded by loyalty as I really don't think you are stupid enough to believe what you expect others to believe.

ben500

spa2k wrote:

ok, time to put a stop to this. Your posts ARE trolling, often pedantic and quite honestly repetitive to the point of boredom.

I refuse to be drawn into your childishness any more.

Another one for the ignore list.

As stated Trolling no! my objectives have been clear from the beginning of this thread one year ago for anyone to look back on, Pedantic hell yes I'll put my hands up to that one, repetitive only because you keep asking the same dumb questions, boring well that's objective isn't it depending on whether you WORK for Tesco's or are being ROBBED by them.

Sue me!

ben500

spa2k wrote:

As for the do we really need to go through the greed debate again? Fair play, you got lots of free goodies and that is entirely the stores fault but boasting about it really doesnt make you look good.

Who's greed are you referring to? Tesco for continually overcharging on the chicken breasts or the op for being overcharged on SO MANY!