Asda Overcharge and £2 Giftcard Problem....

geordie_joe

taxiphil wrote: »

"Some web site"?? Err, that's the Department of Trade and Industry Website.

So how do you explain the following...

http://menmedia.co.uk/news/s/1016750_asda_fined_3500_

(dozens of similar stories out there, it was the first one Google threw up)

Doesn't tell you anything, doesn't tell you what they were charged with, what crime they were found guilty of or anything else.

The web site says "ASDA has been fined £3,500 after it failed to honour cut-price offers at three stores in Manchester."

But that does not mean they were find because they mispriced the booze.

It is more likely that they advertiised 20% off booze, as stated in the article, and the three stores in Manchester did not know about it and refused to give 20% of the booze, as indicated by asda's reply.

This is not mispricing, it is HO saying you will be charged 20% less than the price on the shelf then 3 stores not giving you the 20% off.

It is an offence because the company said you would get 20% if you bought the product, then didn't give you the 20% off. Instead it asked you to pay the price on the shelf.

How is this mispricing?

It's not, it's misleading the consumer into thinking they will get something if they buy this product (a 20% discount) then not giving it to them. That is an offence.

geordie_joe

Just realised that this thread has been moved to a board I never read.

This means that I am very unlikely to read any more posts in this thread, or reply to any. Once the thread link drops off the first page of the groceries board I will never see it again as I never read this board.

taxiphil

geordie_joe wrote: »

"To be prosecuted for this, trading standards would need proof the mispricing was done deliberately" is also true. It is not an offence if you misprice something on the shelf, but at the point of sale give the right price. For it to be an offence the shop would have to deliberately not tell you how much you are going to pay at the point you are going to pay.

How many supermarkets do you know that don't tell you how much you owe them after they have rang up the items you have bought? To do that they would have to ring your items through and say something like "Right, give me a twenty pound note and I'll give you some change" instead of "That will be £16.78 please".

It is an offence if you misprice something on the shelf. The offence is committed at that point. What happens later at the till is irrelevant.

It's what's known in law as strict liability with a due diligence defence. There is a presumption, based on the simple fact that a misleading pricing indication was displayed on the shelf, that the defendant is guilty. If the defendant wishes to rebut this presumption in court by invoking the due diligence defence, the burden of proof is on them, not the prosecution.

So, you see, there is no burden of proof on the prosecution to show that the offence was committed deliberately.

geordie_joe wrote: »

Are you kidding, that is plain English! It means "You have decided to buy the items based purely on the price displayed" It can't be clearer than that, and it can't be unfamiliar to British courts.

No, I'm not kidding. And yes, the concepts are very unfamiliar indeed to British courts.

The CPUTRs are a domestic implementation of The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29). The Directive was a bold piece of legislation combing a sweeping general clause with a maximal harmonisation approach. The UK has embraced this as part of an agenda for simplifying consumer law. One of the controversial features of the Directive was its reference to the "average consumer" which keyed into a line of controversial ECJ decisions. The ECJ used the average consumer standard to attack national (usually German) laws that seemed more concerned to prevent competition.

geordie_joe wrote: »

I wasn't embarrassingly wide of the mark, I was guilty of writing things in simple terms so most people could understand them. In my defence I can only say that I did not know there was an armchair lawyer, who has "read the read the CPUTRs many times from start to finish, and written about them extensively, thanks" but does not understand them,reading the thread.

So no, I won't admit to being "embarrassingly wide of the mark", but I will take the opportunity to call you and idiot again.

In future please do not go telling people what the law is until you actually know what it is, and also remember that it is not your job to interpret the law, that is the job of a judge.

Same goes.

taxiphil

geordie_joe wrote: »

Doesn't tell you anything, doesn't tell you what they were charged with, what crime they were found guilty of or anything else.

Oh dear.

Have you actually read the article?

"Asda pleaded guilty at Manchester Magistrates' Court to seven offences of giving misleading price indications under Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987."

geordie_joe wrote: »

The web site says "ASDA has been fined £3,500 after it failed to honour cut-price offers at three stores in Manchester."

But that does not mean they were find because they mispriced the booze.

It is more likely that they advertiised 20% off booze, as stated in the article, and the three stores in Manchester did not know about it and refused to give 20% of the booze, as indicated by asda's reply.

This is not mispricing, it is HO saying you will be charged 20% less than the price on the shelf then 3 stores not giving you the 20% off.

It is an offence because the company said you would get 20% if you bought the product, then didn't give you the 20% off. Instead it asked you to pay the price on the shelf.

How is this mispricing?

It's not, it's misleading the consumer into thinking they will get something if they buy this product (a 20% discount) then not giving it to them. That is an offence.

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me there.

MyUserNamesTaken

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file8127.pdf

Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it a criminal offence for a person in the course of his business to give consumers a misleading price indication about goods, services, accommodation (including the sale of new homes) or facilities. It applies however you give the price indication - for example, in a TV or press advertisement, on a website, by email or text message, in a catalogue or leaflet, on notices, price tickets or shelf-edge marking in stores, or if you give it orally, for example on the telephone. The term "price indication" includes price comparisons as well as indications of a single price.


There it is, in very plain English. It is a criminal offence to give misleading price indications. It does not require the misleading price indication (misprice) to be deliberate. It's a statutory offence, as such, only the Actus Reus is needed; not Mens Rea.

Geordie Joe, you can resort to petty insults and ad hominem comments all you want. It says far more about you than it does about me or taxi phil. Fortunately, we have both used the above piece of legislation to take on major retailers. So, as you can see, it's not a simple case of "reading one line", as you put it.

By the way, Trading Standards disagrees with you, as does my local Tesco after they received an official warning from TS about their continued misleading pricing of various lines.

Mk14:37

taxiphil wrote: »

"Some web site"?? Err, that's the Department of Trade and Industry Website.

"Err" no it's not, the website that the poster links to is the Office of Public Sector Information.

The Department of Trade and Industry hasn't existed for the best part of a decade, having become the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and latterly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

real1314

geordie_joe wrote: »

But that does not mean they were find because they mispriced the booze.

It is more likely that they advertiised 20% off booze, as stated in the article, and the three stores in Manchester did not know about it and refused to give 20% of the booze, as indicated by asda's reply.

This is not mispricing, it is HO saying you will be charged 20% less than the price on the shelf then 3 stores not giving you the 20% off.

It is an offence because the company said you would get 20% if you bought the product, then didn't give you the 20% off. Instead it asked you to pay the price on the shelf.

How is this mispricing?

It's not, it's misleading the consumer into thinking they will get something if they buy this product (a 20% discount) then not giving it to them. That is an offence.

That's a nice attempt at digging yourself out of a hole. So, which is the "right" price?

Is it the one on the shelf, the one in a newspaper or the one at the till?
They charged the same price as at the till, rather than the one in the newspaper.
In the OP's case they charged the same price as at the till rather than the one on the shelf.

You also referred to the store making every effort to ensure the purchaser did not rely on the misleading price; scanning 200 items through a till and asking for £174.28 would not give a consumer and clear indication of the price of each item.
Putting a little sticky price label might have done, but the supermarkets did awy with that.

As much as you've had a go at others and thrown a few silly names about, you're as much guitly of trying to apply your own interpretations of the law to this as anyone else.

KittyPryde

BillTrac wrote: »

Must be me, I understand some of this post but not all of it....:o

If you were overcharged by 8p why would you be getting it for 8p? If you were overcharged then you are entitled to the overcharge being refunded. Hardly their discretion.

The cheek of it over 8p?

Can't see the point of the thread

I think you've misunderstood.

The OP is talking about ASDA policy that if you get overcharged then you get a refund plus a £2 gift card. However in their case, the staff wouldn't give them a £2 giftcard because the overcharge was 'only 8p'.

They weren't trying to get the item for 8p.

Louisdf

!!!!!! it's 8 pence. Get over it, I bet you looked like a right moron in front of other customers ranting and raving over 8 pence. I wouldn't have given you a giftcard either for that meagre amount of money.

tbw

Louisdf wrote: »

!!!!!! it's 8 pence. Get over it, I bet you looked like a right moron in front of other customers ranting and raving over 8 pence. I wouldn't have given you a giftcard either for that meagre amount of money.

And you would have been wrong if you had refused the OP a gift card - the amount of the overcharge is irrelevant, Asda have a clear policy in place and it is not up to their staff to interpret or bend the rule to suit their whim! 8p may be a petty sum - but a £2 gift card is a useful entitlement.

I dread to think what you would have said about the folks that got complete refunds of £50 or more AND kept the item for a 2p overcharge when Tesco had their wonderful R&R policy in place. I doubt you would have walked away from a deal like that though.

There is a difference between ranting and raving and standing up firmly for your rights.