Innocent Smoothies have lost their innocence - weights and measures trickery ...

browneyedbazzi

Oh my this all got very ranty when I left for work! (and yes, even though I work for a local authority I do work evenings, weekends and late nights)

2sides2everystory...i'm sorry that you feel a need to personally attack anyone that disagrees with you. I do not work in a place that is 'cozied up' with industry although I understand that some anti-authority, hysterical ranty types might like to believe that rather than accept that their understanding of the law is flawed. Although I think it's very unlikely that they have a local authority paid TSO based at their corporate headquarters, a lot of companies do hire consultants who are qualified and previously worked as TSOs to provide them with legal advice...and that legal advice would have said that they were safe to change the volume of product provided the packaging etc was correctly labelled with the correct new size.

My legal argument about the issue remains the same - the AVERAGE consumer of innocent smoothies is capable of reading the volume information printed on the carton and the shelf edge label and there is no chance of successfully prosecuting innocent under the CPRs. You can repeat the wording of the regs as many times as you like but your premise is flawed.

You don't have to take my word for it, call your local trading standards team and see what they have to say (once they've stopped laughing or sighing in exasperation at their time being wasted with rubbish when they could be dealing with real problems).

brettcta

2sides2everystory wrote: »

DCFC you have drawn totally the wrong inference again.

I don't care who you work for, I am just interested in how you qualify your assertions.

It is easy to be a shelf-stacker and to assume well last week Innocent sent 1l packs and this week the Innocent lorry just delivered 750ml packs and our manager said we had to just put 'em out and to infer that ergo, Innocent decide what size they are and Sainsburys don't!

But you are completely wrong - supermarkets as big as Sainsburys have absolutely enormous clout with suppliers, even if they are Coca Cola in sheeps clothing. Have you ever been inside the buying departments at Sainsburys Head Office at Holborn? Do you know what they do?

It may well be that Innocent/Coca Cola did recently wish to alter their entire production to 750ml containers (clearly they didn't because they are also messing with the 1.25l containers alongside the others). However, they constantly have to negotiate with Sainsburys on price, promotion and for shelf space and Sainsburys will strongly put their own views across about what they want.

Ultimately, Sainsburys are just as guilty as Innocent for the misleading actions we have witnessed.

but the thing is, 'we' haven't witnessed any misleading actions. 'we' have seen sainsburys being transparent. the shelf edge label should say it's a 750ml bottle, the price per litre will have gone up but the actual cost has remained the same.

as has been said and clearly ignored on many occasions, sainsburys would be being misleading if they were selling 750ml bottles under the guise of 1l bottles, but they're not, they're selling 750ml bottles as 750ml bottles, but at the same price as last time.

the choice is simple - vote with your feet and your purse/wallet and either buy a different brand of smoothie, make your own or shop elsewhere.

2sides2everystory

redped, your (a) and (b) example tricks are the simplest ones which really did not require new law in the form of CPRs. The new law that I'd like you to consider is that given force by the wording in regulation 5 that follows after the words "paragraph (4)":

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct

Now that browneyedbazzi (BEB) has returned to the fray perhaps he or she might also comment on the strength of the law and not on the snazziness of their title at work

I would not dream of calling my local trading standards team on something like this because they work on the basis of a status quo - they do not test the envelopes of new laws. However, BEB was bold enough to jump write in with both feet last night and wave around supposed credentials so BEB, your floor ... your average argument thus far presented is of limited scope and application. How do you deal with the rest of the words in the law - especially those words 'in any way deceives'?

George_Michael

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I would not dream of calling my local trading standards team on something like this because they work on the basis of a status quo - they do not test the envelopes of new laws. I don't want to appear to be a total idiot who cannot read the labels attached to the shelves where the cartons are displayed or the writing that is on the cartons themselves

(Edited to make it easier to understand).

browneyedbazzi

Firstly, I haven't mentioned my job title - you made one up that wasn't mine!

Secondly, the CPRs are very strong and have been used successfully many times. The team I work with routinely prosecute traders under the regs and I believe they are contributing to a much fairer trading environment. It is particularly good in relation to pressure sales etc where unscrupulous sales people have taken advantage of vulnerable people.

edit - oops got bored and didn't read the last bit of your post - actually we do use the CPRs and there have been many many cases taken. When the legislation first came into force there were a lot of people in enforcement who actually wanted to be the first to use it! As professionals we get regular updates about changes to legislation and new case law that affect our area of work.

There is no hard and fast rule that defines what is likely to deceive the average consumer - it is a judgement call and varies depending on the product and the context.

redped

2sides2everystory wrote: »

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a)if it contains false information (it doesn't) and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) (it's not untruthful - they tell you it now contains 750ml) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct (assuming I'm an average person, I don't believe I'd be deceived)

Answers inline, above.

antrobus

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I always thought of Innocent the smoothies company as an ok company because it had some connection with Virgin originally.

I don't think Innocent ever had a connection with Virgin (And I'm not sure why anyone would think that was a 'good thing', but never mind.) but it's now most certainly a subsidiary of the Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia.

2sides2everystory wrote: »

My local Sainsburys has removed all the 1 litre packs and replaced them with 750ml and is running a very misleading 2 for £4 promotion to deflect from the 25% reduction in size.

It also has some new shaped 1.25l cartons which it describes as value packs.

My view is that this kind of marketing messing with weights and measures and deflecting customers with promotions at the point of changing the weights and measure is UNLAWFUL.

To be blunt, your view is inaccurate, as it's perfectly lawful. It's been done many times before as in 'The Great 'Shrinking Food' Hunt' see
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2394297

I see from the link posted to the Innocent blog that they say that they've set their prices so their "750ml cartons are cheaper per pack, but cost a bit more per ml than our old 1L cartons. Our 1.25L cartons are a higher price per pack, but are the same price per ml as our 1L cartons." Since, for some reason, they feel unable to quantify what they mean by "a bit more", I suspect they are trying to up their margins a tad. But what else would you expect from a loss making business?

MamaMoo_2

Yes, I worked at Holborn.
No, we didn't get a say in resized or reshaped items. The only items that we gave feedback on, packaging wise, were new suppliers demonstrating an entirely new product.

2sides2everystory

redped, I think you have unfortunately not read the sentences you commented correctly. There is an either / or condition and it doesn't matter if there is factually correct labeling. It is the existence of likely deceit by the "presentation" of the product which counts.

BEB didn't mention his or her job title but nevertheless impressed upon me that he or she was an Authorised Officer under CPRs. I dont think we need to split hairs over how many titles a TSO or any other local authority worker might have - its probably too many - a bit like their pension expectations

BEB you haven't answered my questions on the law - I am not interested in your view of how strong the law feels in your hands when you prosecute "traders" - I am more interested in whether you are bashing the corporates with it to the proper extent.

antrobus, I fancy I read somewhere once that perhaps Virgin provided some seed capital in the early days of Innocent Drinks.

MamaMoo - did you also work at Stamford Street before the move? Did you actually work in the buying departments? I accept that at one end of the scale even a single large supermarket like Sainsburys won't have much sway on say the size of a pack of Heinz beans, but with juices which are almost all sold in 1 litre packs there is the practice issue that I am arguing in this thread. Sainsburys are obliged to self-regulate just as Innocent themselves are.

Perhaps as it is Coca Cola, and perhaps because they never quite lived down Sainsburys launch of their own brand Cola in direct competition 20 odd years ago, then I could understand that relationships might not be the warmest between the two companies still.

browneyedbazzi

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Now that browneyedbazzi (BEB) has returned to the fray perhaps he or she might also comment on the strength of the law and not on the snazziness of their title at work

2sides2everystory wrote: »

BEB you haven't answered my questions on the law - I am not interested in your view of how strong the law feels in your hands when you prosecute "traders" - I am more interested in whether you are bashing the corporates with it to the proper extent.

As you'll see above you rather explicitly asked for my opinion on the strength of the law.

Also, we don't 'bash corporates,' that is not how the law is intended to be used. You may want to have a look at the Enforcement Concordat. When we take enforcement action it needs to be reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest, not 'bashing'.