Tesco misprice discussion area part 12

iwant2savemoney

myrtle wrote:

so come then, who has actually got a telly today?

Tried and failed no SEL next to tv

ben500

spa2k wrote:

I think that the argument is that the price advertised for the mobile is £xx.xx and that is what was charged....what didnt happen is that an additional discount based upon further spend should have been applied.

There was no overcharge, simply a non deduction of a multisave discount.

That said, I have not claimed that I agree with the CS stance, simply explaining it from their view.

If they tried to reason with me along those lines I would have a simple response.

X B oll OX

frenchman_2

iwant2savemoney wrote:

Tried and failed no SEL next to tv

doesn't work in the Bournemouth area!!!!!!:mad: :mad:

leadhead

frenchman wrote:

That's it. blame the foreigners;)

No disrespect to anyone...........but I don't mind who they blame........as long as they pay up.

spa2k

ben500 wrote:

If they tried to reason with me along those lines I would have a simple response.

X B oll OX

Lay off peeps, just trying to clarify the argument trying to be used, not saying its right or wrong....simply trying to help!

MyUserNamesTaken

spa2k wrote:

I think that the argument is that the price advertised for the mobile is £xx.xx and that is what was charged....what didnt happen is that an additional discount based upon further spend should have been applied.

There was no overcharge, simply a non deduction of a multisave discount.

That said, I have not claimed that I agree with the CS stance, simply explaining it from their view.

I think we need to be a little clearer on this, as non-deduction of a multisave discount will normally count as an overcharge if the discount is meant to be taken off automatically by the till. However, if the discount is meant to be applied by the checkout operator, this comes under "cashier error", which is not covered by the refund policy (apparently). The question is: was the discount meant to be done by the cashier? If so, Tesco HO has always tended to say that cashier errors don't count (although some stores do refund even when this happens).

Personally, I'd still say it was an overcharge regardless of whether it was caused by the cashier or the till not taking the discount off.

Park_Ranger_2

spa2k wrote:

I think that the argument is that the price advertised for the mobile is £xx.xx and that is what was charged....what didnt happen is that an additional discount based upon further spend should have been applied.

There was no overcharge, simply a non deduction of a multisave discount.

That said, I have not claimed that I agree with the CS stance, simply explaining it from their view.

Just to muddy this a bit further, and I appreciate that it's not what happened here. I haven't seen the POS material for the new phone offer but if the small print just says something like '£20 off if you spend xxx' and the phone costs more than xxx then surely it's an overcharge if you only buy the phone and the discount isn't given?

Larumbelle

RE: overcharge policy.

On October 30th 2006 I purchased a mobile phone from the Tesco store in xxxxxxxxxxx. It was priced £74.95, but an offer stated £20 off when you spend £40 instore. This offer was not deducted at the checkout. (Full details of the transaction are enclosed.)

To their credit, the customer service staff checked the offer immediately that I approached them, and agreed that this discount should have been deducted. They also refunded me the £20 as soon as they could work out how to do it. However, I draw your attention to POS displayed behind the Customer Service desk and most of the till points in your store. It states that

“…if things don't add up -
In the unlikely event you are charged a higher price than on the shelf or the product we will refund your money and you can keep the product"

I asked the staff about this. They told me that ‘this doesn’t count’. I had no wish to make a scene or further hold up the queue so I left the store at this point. However, I did call Customer Services later that day. I spoke to a gentleman named Darren who told me that “they’re right. It doesn’t count as an overcharge. An overcharge is when a shelf ticket has the wrong price so you are charged more. This is a multibuy that wasn’t deducted, so it isn’t an overcharge.”

I find your company’s definition of what is – and isn’t – an overcharge very interesting. I believe that if you are charged too much for an item, for any reason, whether it be because the shelf label is wrong, a multibuy hasn’t been deducted, or whatever, then you have been overcharged.

I understand that your policy far exceeds your legal obligation to rectify pricing errors. However, the fact that you have this policy, and that you advertise it in your stores, surely means that you have an obligation to honour it. Whether or not you intend to honour it in the case of mis-applied multibuy offers, is beside the point. the fact is that you charged me a higher price than on the shelf. Therefore, I believe, I am entitled to a further refund of £54.95, and hope that you will do the decent thing and return this money to me.

Displaying misleading price indications is an offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Misleading advertisements are an offence under The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 and also the Trades Descriptions Act 1968. I believe that your company has breached one or more of these regulations.

I look forward to resolution of this matter. I require either the refund that I believe I am entitled to, or written confirmation that “An overcharge is when a shelf ticket has the wrong price so you are charged more. This is a multibuy that wasn’t deducted, so it isn’t an overcharge”, in order that I may seek clarification from my local Trading Standards Department regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Silver

flyer

I don't think anyone got a tv. Wasn't it just a wind up??

ben500

spa2k wrote:

Lay off peeps, just trying to clarify the argument trying to be used, not saying its right or wrong....simply trying to help!

That wasn't aimed a slight upon your explanation merely a demonstration albeit cryptic as to who to deal with the arguement if proffered.
A precedent has already been set with respect to out of date pos and Tesco would have difficulty if tested thoroughly on the question.