currys - always lowering prices

Anthillmob

or not....

before christmas i brought a wireless keyboard and mouse for £30. there was no sale on and brought it at the RRP.

yesterday we were in there looking at cameras and i saw the exact same keyboard priced at £29.99 sale price 'was £49.99'

what a cheek! theyve upped the price then made it look like it had been reduced.

moonrakerz

They haven't "upped" the price.

They are using a loop hole in the law regarding prices. That item would have been priced at £49.99 in ONE of their stores for 28 days. That then allows them to say in every store that it has been reduced from £49.99 to £29.99, regardless of what is was previously priced at in the other stores.

Searcher

moonrakerz wrote:

They haven't "upped" the price.

They are using a loop hole in the law regarding prices. That item would have been priced at £49.99 in ONE of their stores for 28 days. That then allows them to say in every store that it has been reduced from £49.99 to £29.99, regardless of what is was previously priced at in the other stores.

But you got it for £20 less than it is now so where is the problem

Edit: it was at the end of a long night shift and brain wasn't working properley

bigst

Searcher wrote:

But you got it for £20 less than it is now so where is the problem :eek:

And how do you work that out then.He got it for £30 its now £29.99 :rolleyes:

furrypolka

I'd report this to Trading Standards.

There's some debate about whether they ARE allowed to say "it was on sale at one of our stores at the higher price for 28 days". TS can look into this.

furrypolka

Here we go. I don't deal with pricing on a daily basis so had to dig to find it but:

1.2.2 In any comparison with your own previous price—

(a) the previous price should be the last price at which the product was available to consumers in the previous 6 months unless the situation covered by paragraph 1.2.8 below applies;

(b) the product should have been available to consumers at that price for at least 28 consecutive days in the previous 6 months; and

(c) the previous price should have applied (as above) for that period at the same outlet where the reduced price is now being offered.

From the Consumer Protection (Code of Practice for Traders on Price Indications) Approval Order 2005, which is an addition to Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Full text: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052705.htm

They're basically not allowed to say that because it was on sale in one of their stores for 28 days that the price now is "reduced". This legislation closed that particular loophole. Report them

melg1973

I had a similar problem recently. We decided to buy a LCD TV after xmas and went to have a look in the currys sale. The one we actually liked wasn't in the sale, it just said it was £799 (many others were marked £100 off etc) so we didn't think there was any rush and we could have a shop around. Lo and behold we went back in a couple of weeks later and it was £899 and they wouldn't budge. :mad:

moonrakerz

furrypolka wrote:

They're basically not allowed to say that because it was on sale in one of their stores for 28 days that the price now is "reduced". This legislation closed that particular loophole. Report them

The loop hole is still wide open.

The "legislation" you quote is actually a "code of practice" not the Law. If you read the introduction, it says :- (my underlining )

"This Code of Practice is approved under section 25 of the Act, which gives the Secretary of State power to approve codes of practice to give practical guidance to traders. It is addressed to traders and sets out what is good practice to follow in giving price indications in a wide range of different circumstances, so as to avoid giving misleading price indications. The Code is not comprehensive. It cannot address every circumstance in which a misleading price may be given, particularly for new and innovative selling practices. It is guidance, rather than mandatory,................You may, therefore, still give price indications which do not accord with this Code, provided they are not misleading."


What is "misleading" ? If you put a notice up saying that these goods have previously been offered at the higher price for a period of 28 days at the Timbuctu store - which the stores do, that cannot be misleading.

Caveat emptor !

furrypolka

But the Code of Practice also relates to Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which is criminal legislation. From the Code:

7

If you are taken to court for giving a misleading price indication, the court can take into account whether or not you have followed this Code. If you have done as the Code advises, that will not be an absolute defence but it will tend to show that you have not committed an offence. Similarly if you have done something the Code advises against doing it may tend to show that the price indication was misleading.

Therefore by not following the Code on the 28-day rule, it is indicative of a potential offence under Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. In the OPs case it doesn't even state that it was sold at a higher price at another store. Clearly misleading.

Meaning of "misleading" (from Part 3 CPA) shortened as appropriate:

21 Meaning of “misleading”
(1) For the purposes of section 20 above an indication given to any consumers is misleading as to a price if what is conveyed by the indication, or what those consumers might reasonably be expected to infer from the indication or any omission from it, includes any of the following, that is to say—

(d) that a person who in fact has no such expectation—

(i) expects the price to be increased or reduced (whether or not at a particular time or by a particular amount); or

(ii) expects the price, or the price as increased or reduced, to be maintained (whether or not for a particular period); or

(e) that the facts or circumstances by reference to which the consumers might reasonably be expected to judge the validity of any relevant comparison made or implied by the indication are not what in fact they are.

(2) For the purposes of section 20 above, an indication given to any consumers is misleading as to a method of determining a price if what is conveyed by the indication, or what those consumers might reasonably be expected to infer from the indication or any omission from it, includes any of the following, that is to say—

(d) that a person who in fact has no such expectation—

(i) expects the method to be altered (whether or not at a particular time or in a particular respect); or

(ii) expects the method, or that method as altered, to remain unaltered (whether or not for a particular period); or

(e) that the facts or circumstances by reference to which the consumers might reasonably be expected to judge the validity of any relevant comparison made or implied by the indication are not what in fact they are.

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1)(e) and (2)(e) above a comparison is a relevant comparison in relation to a price or method of determining a price if it is made between that price or that method, or any price which has been or may be determined by that method, and—

(a) any price or value which is stated or implied to be, to have been or to be likely to be attributed or attributable to the goods, services, accommodation or facilities in question or to any other goods, services, accommodation or facilities; or

(b) any method, or other method, which is stated or implied to be, to have been or to be likely to be applied or applicable for the determination of the price or value of the goods, services, accommodation or facilities in question or of the price or value of any other goods, services, accommodation or facilities.

Count_Dante

This kind of nonsense is more associated with furniture strores than anything else. I'm tired of those stupid adverts for the likes of DFS and SCS bleating on about 'double the discount savings' and so forth. In reality the discount applies to a price nobody sane would have paid, but people are led to think it is a genuine bargain.

woohoo_postingid

I always thought it was a percentage of stores rather than just one.