Undercharged at a restaurant

Russe11

What is the piece of law that mean you can pay what ever you feel the value of the service was opposed to what the bill is for the meal?

YorkshireBoy

Russe11 wrote: »

What is the piece of law that mean you can pay what ever you feel the value of the service was opposed to what the bill is for the meal?

I don't think there is.

My understanding is that if you refuse to pay 'anything' it becomes a criminal matter, ie theft, and the police will be called.

If you offer to pay 'something', ie what you think the meal was worth, then the police won't get involved and it becomes a civil matter. And faced with court proceedings and lawyers costs I would imagine most restauranters would back down.

lisyloo

hat is the piece of law that mean you can pay what ever you feel the value of the service was opposed to what the bill is for the meal?

I don't think you can pay whatever you feel like, but if there is a genuine problem you do have some rights.

I've been served uncooked chicken twice in my life which is potentially dangerous.
I have had the meal removed from the bill and had a free replacement (plus free dessets in one case).

I have also ripped a paid of leggings on a nail sticking out of a bench, again potentially harmful.
I was initially offered a free coffee and said that wasn't enough for a ruined pair of leggings and got a free lunch for two (which was more than enough).

Most restaurants will sort out genuine problems adequately, but I don't think paying what you like is a right.

bengal-stripe

We don’t even know if the OP {who hasn’t come back yet) was ‘undercharged’ through the wrong prices put on the bill or through the fact that certain items {drinks, deserts, whatever) were missing in their entirety.

In the latter case, it is probably not different from a hotel, who after the guest has paid and left, discover he has emptied the mini bar or made off with the towels. Without much ado, the hotel will put an additional charge through on the credit card.

Degenerate

bengal-stripe wrote: »

We don’t even know if the OP {who hasn’t come back yet) was ‘undercharged’ through the wrong prices put on the bill or through the fact that certain items {drinks, deserts, whatever) were missing in their entirety.

I agree that we don't have enough information here about exactly what occured. If the OP authorised the transaction but was accidentally undercharged, the restaurant are entitled to correct it without further notice. If the bill was wrong, they may pursue the debt but they can't just charge an amount the card holder didn't authorise.

In the latter case, it is probably not different from a hotel, who after the guest has paid and left, discover he has emptied the mini bar or made off with the towels. Without much ado, the hotel will put an additional charge through on the credit card.

I beg to differ here. You agree to this on check-in to the room - this is why hotels take pre-auths or deposits, although they probably don't explain it well enough. Similar thing with car hire.

meer53

The restaurant will debit the amount using the authorisation from the first transaction, they don't need to authorise it again or have the card present to do it. Any dispute logged would fail if the restaurant can provide evidence of what the correct amount was. They will do this if the bank disputed the second transaction. It's not on really is it, to think you've got away with not paying for something ?

simongregson

ryantcb wrote: »

What will happen is the underpaid amount will be taken from the waitresses wages. So the restaurant wont chase you for it as they have taken it from wages. If you do feel bad that you have lost some poor girl who was working long hours some of her wages then go back and give the money to the serving waitress and not manager. If you give it to the manager they will keep it and have already taken it form the waiter/ess in question.

That would be an illegal deduction from wages unless there was a clause in the waitress' employment contract stating that they would do this.

lisyloo

In the latter case, it is probably not different from a hotel, who after the guest has paid and left, discover he has emptied the mini bar or made off with the towels. Without much ado, the hotel will put an additional charge through on the credit card.

I disagree with this statement and agree with Degenerate.
When you check into a hotel you sign terms and conditions which say that you will pay for any damage and any items you consume and any services you use.
They also get financial authorisation on your credit card up front.
It's quite different from eating at a restaurant, where they have no payment authorisation.
Hotels are a different case and they are allowed to debit you card on the basis of cunsumption or damage and you do agree to this.

bengal-stripe

lisyloo wrote: »

When you check into a hotel you sign terms and conditions which say that you will pay for any damage and any items you consume and any services you use.
They also get financial authorisation on your credit card up front.
It's quite different from eating at a restaurant, where they have no payment authorisation.

I have never been pre-authorised more than one night’s cost for a hotel at the point of booking. My final invoice always exceeded that pre-charge Nor have I ever signed an agreement (either at a hotel or a restaurant) that I would pay for all the services used. That goes without saying. I probably do not look so suspicious that any place will ask for a signature, as they feel I might be a dodgy customer.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, in the OP’s case, the restaurant forgot to add three bottles of wine to the bill, do you think the OP still owes the money for those purchases? That moment the customer places an order in a restaurant, there is an understanding (although no signed agreement), that he will pay for these purchases. Why would it is dubious, or even incorrect (if not criminal), to charge those missed purchases the next day to the card.

If you want to get away with some serious undercharging, pay by cash not by card.

Of course, we don’t know for certain if this has happened, as the OP hasn’t come back. If the scenario was different, and the OP had spent time in some clip-joint with loose women, and after he had left, the place would charge an additional three bottles of champagne to the card, that would be an entirely different ballgame.

lisyloo

I have never been pre-authorised more than one night’s cost for a hotel at the point of booking.

Agreed (it's not at the point of booking).
When you arrive, if you have paid in full, they would take your credit card (everywhere I've been) for drinks, food etc. (and undeclared min-bar and damage).

I probably do not look so suspicious that any place will ask for a signature

If you booked a hotel on-line everyone will have to tick a box to say they agree to the terms and conditions.
This is standard policy, they don't pick out "dodgy" customers on the basis of looks. that's a ridiculous suggestion.

do you think the OP still owes the money for those purchases?

Absolutely, I don't think anyone is diputing the money is owed.
What some of us are saying is that once a bill has been agreed and authorised, they are not authorised to amend it "willy nilly" even if there has been a mistake.
When you book a hotel - over the phone, online or in person you will agree to Ts & Cs one way or another. On-line this is done by ticking a box adn generally you cannot book without ticking that box.
When you visit and book a restaurant you do not agree/sign Ts & Cs.

Why would it is dubious, or even incorrect (if not criminal), to charge those missed purchases the next day to the card.

The bill is valid and can be legally enforced.
The method of payment by credit card has not been authorised.
If I owed you personally for wine, then I defintiely owe you, but that doesn't mean you can dip into my purse does it???

If you want to get away with some serious undercharging, pay by cash not by card.

You are correct that if they do not know who you are then it makes it difficult for them to locate you.
This might be one reason why most places ask for a telephone number.
I suspect it isn't a huge widespread problem, otherwise restaurants country wide would want id and they don't which implies it's not a big problem.

If the scenario was different, and the OP had spent time in some clip-joint with loose women, and after he had left, the place would charge an additional three bottles of champagne to the card, that would be an entirely different ballgame.

Well yes and no.
It different in that he hasn't genuinely spent the money he doesn't owe it.
But unauthorised deductions are unauthorised whether the money is owed or not.

You cannot take money from someone's wallet or purse if they owe it to you.
The same goes for credit cards.

There are two exceptions I can think of with cards.
One is booking (like hotels) where there are Ts & Cs you sign and there is a "pre-authorisation".
The second scenario is continuous card authority (CCA) where you sign up for a renewable contract (like magzines subscriptions, RAC or car insurance).

But in most cases with one-off purchases and no Ts&Cs, the company are not authorised to dip into your credit card without authorisation.
That's similar to someone dipping into you wallet or purse.

There are legal ways for getting money from people that owe you.
The simplest is to ask them to pay.
If in dispute you go to court.
You can them get ballifs in or get an attachement or earnings to get the employer to deduct it directly.
But there are proper processes .

You cannot legally walk into someones home a seize their goods, seize their wallet or seize their wages.
There are proper ways of doing things.

But in this case it's not a big deal.
The customer simply phones their card company, says it's unauthorised and most likely the card company will refund as it's "customer not present".
Then it's back to the restaurant to do things properly.
If it was me, I'd want to write them a nasty letter, put bad reviews up on trip advisor etc. and make it a little hard for them to get their money.
I'm not saying I wouldn't pay, but I'd want to send them a serious messaage that this is NOT the way to treat people.