Identical items on same shelf at two different prices - two different views too!

2sides2everystory

Reading Martins blog about accepting an offer of a discount to buy faulty goods but then being denied other rights reminded me of something that happened to me the other week where I got spun a line and thought "hmmm that doesn't sound quite right".

I was told that one very popular chain/group that is known for selling top brands at discounted prices actually has an in-house (secondment?) of someone from local Trading Standards at their head office. Now that may well be the case, but what didn't sound right was the interpretation of dual pricing that seems to be condoned by Trading Standards.

This also happens to be a store group which applies different coloured stickers for faulty/clearance items and who often give a 10% discount if you ask about a discount for something with a fault which you nevertheless wish to buy. However this story is about original quality goods marked up at the first price, albeit a price less than RRP.

Why was I told about the Trading Standards person? Well it came about because I had just been to another store in their group to purchase 7 identical items at £9.99 (all they had in stock in that colour). I'd received one particular treatment under trading standards in store #1 and then had gone into store #2 to buy another four of the same - the last of their stock too - but there I received a different treatment for a similar query I'd raised). ... Yes ok ... and ... ?

Well in store #1 the issue was that I had paid with my card without really checking the total and it dawned that the £83.93 I'd paid was too much only when I'd got back into the car and folded my receipt. So I went and queried it.

I had been charged 3 x £9.99 and 4 x £12.99 ! I got the bag out of the boot and sure enough 3 were labelled at £9.99, 2 were labelled at £12.99 and 2 were not price-labelled at all! None of them had clearance price stickers. The difference in price was partially explained by different barcodes. Talk about a complex problem !

How was I going to get that rectified? I needed these items and it seemed stocks were running out in the colour I wanted. I didn't want them to say well do you want them or not?

So, I walked back into the store with my receipt and one item of each price and let them draw the simplest conclusion - incorrect pricing/misleading = refund the difference.

The manager on duty explained that the cheaper priced code corresponded to more recently delivered stock - it was a newer code. The store generally doesn't put the stickers on - they are delivered already priced. That happens a lot apparently - same items, more recent delivery, different price. I said well surely if you really wish to sell them at a different price even though they are identical then you have to offer them separately, not mix them up? That's misled me. He instructed the new cashier process 4 returns at £12.99 and 4 new purchases at £9.99 so I was happy.

So I drove to store #2 found four more but immediately noticed one was marked at the higher price. So this time before I bought it I showed them the "glitch" and the receipts and credit slips from store #1 to show them how they dealt with it.

That's when I was told that the dual pricing was all perfectly legit as agreed with trading standards. The manager in store #2 said they were specifically trained on the point and that manager at store #1 was wrong to have given me all at the cheap price.

If I wanted the last item then I'd have to pay £12.99 for it and if I still wanted to query it, I'd have to take it up with head office. The manager was very nice about it and even said that she queried it herself when she first realised it was standard practice. I did want it, and so I did pay £12.99 for it but I haven't got around to querying it yet as it was only £3 and it seems the current score is 4:1 to me anyway.

I can't help thinking that it might be the same store group as the discounted jacket in Martin's blog as they seemed to be just as firm about their somewhat unusual interpretations ...

somethingcorporate

wow, that was a long post and I am a little confused about what the moral / point is?

It's a perfectly legitimate (albeit somewhat annoying!) practice. You offer to buy the goods from them, not the other way around. So manager in store #1 would have been perfectly within his rights to tell you where to go when you returned rather than offer a refund for the difference.

arcon5

From what I am reading.. the new price in store #1 was £9.99 and some was unmarked but actually £12.99..? Thats my only problem here. But the 2 that have £12.99 labels on, irrespective of the fact the new stock is £9.99 is perfectly fine. You know what the price is for that item so can make an informed decision about whether to buy it or not.

But other than that, why can't old & new stock have different prices?
If in store #1 the guy refused to refund the difference in price for the two clearly labelled £12.99 then they would have been within their rights to do so. In the same way each store could have different prices!

Most supermarkets will have the same product on two different offers also, in different locations in store.

So what store are you talking about here? And whats the thread about? I'm soo utterly confused! Are you asking what your rights are or stepping in Martin's shoes by protecting your consumer 'rights'?

stugib

Sports Direct/Sports Soccer by any chance?

I was told the same thing a few months back. Luckily the higher priced item (only one left in my size) came up at the lower price of the identical items on the same shelf.

Why they think consumers should care about what stock code they have on the box I don't know, but that's SD for you: dirt cheap but not consumer friendly.

zyonchaos

I like the way people "cant see" what the problem is. Its obvious the OP was confused as to whether the store can legitamately charge two seperate prices for essentially the same item. Simples

Unfortunately they can and they could also of charged you seven different prices for the seven same items. The vagaries of a semi barter based system lol. They could make up any price they wanted regardless of what is on the price tag and until you both agreed on a price and complete a sale they can charge what they want.

So walk off smile and remember 4-1 to you lol

esuhl

So many words...! Is this a suitable summary:

Q: Can a shop charge different amounts for identical products?
A: Yes - assuming the advertised prices are correct (or at least corrected promptly when staff are made aware of an error).

esuhl

zyonchaos wrote: »

The vagaries of a semi barter based system lol.

I don't know many shops that offer any kind of "semi barter based system"! Well, maybe secondhand car dealerships, pawn and antique shops... Definitely in the minority, though! Shops tend to want to sell goods for a profit, rather than just swap what they have for more stuff.

molerat

The manager possibly gave a refund because he knew the store was committing an offence under the Price Marking Order 2004 by not having a "clear, unambiguous and easily identifiable" price on the unmarked items.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Why have you mentioned this person from trading standards so many times?

I'd received one particular treatment under trading standards in store #1 and then had gone into store #2 to buy another four of the same - the last of their stock too - but there I received a different treatment for a similar query I'd raised). ... Yes ok ... and ... ?

What? This makes no sense as trading standards didnt sell you anything.

vyle

As I read this thread, I recall the 'grammar nazi' thread in 'Praise, Vent and Warnings'.

The OP is confusing, convoluted, and just plain strange.

I was told that one very popular chain/group that is known for selling top brands at discounted prices actually has an in-house (secondment?) of someone from local Trading Standards at their head office.

What does that even mean? A shop has their own personal trading standards officer?

At first, I thought OP meant that the shop sells reduced stock to staff, but somehow the tale moves from shops keeping trading standards officers, to these officers leaking sinister secrets to OP, to how shops price items.

Forgive me if I'm replying to the wrong question, but if the items have different barcodes, then they are different products and can have different prices. You'll notice that in a lot of shops, the same item will be repackaged and will bear a different price. The older one will be cheaper, the newer one more expensive. Clothing doesn't really have packaging, though. If the price is the price, then so be it. The only time there would be a legal issue is if the shop was trying to deliberately mislead you.

It is annoying, but not illegal.

2sides2everystory

OK so I had an off day and my OP was even more convoluted than usual, but clearly most of you who replied are simply not thinking either

Trading standards are those standards supposed to be upheld by Trading Standards officers - if you prefer to faff with some argument about my grammar rather than deduce what might be wrong with these particular trading standards I've highlighted, then I think you might find the couplet "trading standards" is a simple noun as well as a proper noun?

What does that even mean? A shop has their own personal trading standards officer?

Yes that is exactly what I was told - a local government employee apparently seconded full-time to one major retail chain with a desk in their office not the town hall. I question the likelihood of public servants getting too matey as perhaps evidenced by the pricemarking nonsense I noticed.

If you went into Asda and they had marked all of the Pringles cans in your eyeline at £1.00p and you grabbed a handful and got out of the store and found that two were marked and charged at £1.98 then you'd rightly be aggrieved. Why they might be marked differently is not your concern as a customer. You are only concerned with deciding whether you will buy at the advertised price. You are not expected to check each identical item carefully to make sure you are not being tricked.

There is very little difference between the Pringles discrepancy(which is very common too) and my example from a different type of store.

The main difference is that the price marking in Asda is done using promotional boards and shelf labels. In the store group I am talking about it is via individual item pricing only in the old fashioned way.

As you may have guessed, I believe that Trading Standards have misinterpreted the law and are not acting in the consumer interest by cosying up to major retailers and letting them off the hook on price labelling.