PC World - false advertising?

Dave-o

Hi All

I recently bought a camera at PC World for $69.99 (sorry, Aussie keyboard). It was advertised on the shelf as reduced from $200. Hence a massive saving and a real bargain.

The issue is that when I took it home, the quality of the camera and its pictures is pretty good but certainly not what you'd expect from a $200 camera. After a tiny bit of research, I found out that nowhere had ever sold this camera for $200 and, to my knowledge, certainly not PC World.

When I contacted PC World with this precise issue asking for evidence that it had been sold at $200, I received this response:

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email dated 7th February 2012.

Please be advised that any retail price is a recommended price and the retailer can price a product as they see fit. The recommended retail price is only a guideline. The product was on offer at £69.99 and you purchased the camera at that price. We will not be offering any compensation on this occasion.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Of course, I could be wrong about this but I understood that shops had to have actually sold the item (even if only for one hour) at the price listed as the original price if they were going to offer it as a sale item at a lower price, noting the original price on the shelf ticket. To my knowledge, this particular camera came on the market at somewhere between $110 and $120, depending on the store.

The camera is quite good, as I said, but I do believe that I was fooled by false advertising and bought a camera which is not as good as advertised by PC World.

Does anyone have any thoughts here? Is this legal?

Cheers all.

Dave-o
[/FONT]

CoolHotCold

They don't have to sell the item at £200.

But it would of been on their system at £200 even if they didn't have any stock at some point.


Unfortunately you are chasing a rabbit down a molehill. Do you also think DFS have sales items that actually sold a corner set at £5000 now down to £249 for the super sale sale.

Plus without the model or SKU from receipt not much more I can help with.

shaun_from_Africa

I recently bought a camera at PC World for $69.99 (sorry, Aussie keyboard).

Nothing to do with your query, just a useful tip for you.
On your keyboard, press and hold down the "Alt" key and whilst keeping it pressed, type in 0163.
This should then give you the £ symbol.

Valli

are you sure that it was reduced from £200 and not just marked up as RRP £200?

anyway these are the government guidelines for retailers about pricing goods

Gordon_Hose

Valli wrote: »

are you sure that it was reduced from £200 and not just marked up as RRP £200?

That's the first thing I thought.

Dave-o

Thanks very much all. It is a good point re RRP (I am not sure - it was a shiny red sticker!) but I don't really see what difference it makes in practical terms.

This example is from the GUIDANCE on the UK Regulations (May 2008) implementing the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

7.8 The ‘consumer’s rights’ include rights the consumer may
have under Part 5A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or Part 1B
of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

A trader advertises televisions for sale saying the price has
been substantially discounted. In fact, they have only been
on sale at the non-discounted price in very small numbers for
a very short period of time in one of the trader’s numerous
shops. Whilst the trader’s advertisement may be factually
correct, it is likely nonetheless to be deceptive. The average
consumer would have been deceived about the existence of
a specific price advantage in a way that is likely to cause him
to take a different decision about the television – in this case
to buy it.

And in the OFT's recent study report ("Advertising of prices") it states:

2.20 A price promotion will not be of interest in terms of priority for
enforcement action unless it is being used in a misleading manner. For
each type of price frame there are particular implementations that we
consider are likely to mislead and that are likely to be high priorities for
enforcement. These include:
• the use of RRPs that do not reflect a realistic selling price, in
circumstances where a significant proportion of consumers think the
RRP represents an actual selling price

In Annex D to the report, it states:

Examples of misleading actions:
• Advertising a product at a special sale or offer price when compared
with a recommended retail price (RRP) or similar, when the reference
price is false and the product has never been sold at that price, in
order to mislead a consumer about the existence of a specific price
advantage.

In my view, listing an RRP (if that is what it was) which is almost double the actual retail price of the camera does not reflect a realistic selling price.

So isn't this a breach of section 5 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 or am I reading it wrong?

Cheers all.

D

CoolHotCold

You give no sort of details. Like I said if you can prove what model it was or the SKU I can possibly help you out.

Valli

No

RRP (retailers recommended price) or MRP (Maunufacturer's ...) have no legal standing. However to advertise a REDUCED price the item MUST have been on sale in that store for a period of 28 days at the higher price (I believe, but am not 100% about this next bit) sometime in the previous 6 months.

Some stores post disclaimers where the higher price may have been charged in some, but not all, of their stores. I know that M&S do this here in Valliland.

RRPs and MRPs are no indication that the item has ever been offered at that price.

wealdroam

Dave-o wrote: »

So isn't this a breach of section 5 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 or am I reading it wrong?

You may well be reading it right.

Why not report your findings to Consumer Direct?
They, and/or Trading Standards, will then decide if anything needs to be done.

I'm pretty sure that CPUTR will not help you obtain anything from PCWorld though.

You said in the OP "...[FONT=&quot]bought a camera which is not as good as advertised by PC World".[/FONT]
Not sure that camera quality can be measured by the RRP.

Crazy_Jamie

Dave-o wrote:

[FONT=&quot]I do believe that I was fooled by false advertising and bought a camera which is not as good as advertised by PC World.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I'm not commenting either way on relevant regulations or guidance as to advertising prices, but even if you are right on that point I fail to see in any event how you have been 'fooled' by false advertising. Price, whether RRP, selling price, or discounting price, never has been and never will be a determinative factor when it comes to quality.

As a consumer you can and should be ensuring before purchasing that a particular product is suitable for your needs, and when it comes to purchasing electrical items such as cameras it is just straight forward common sense to do your homework first by looking up reviews and such if you are not familiar with the different features and models. If you make a habit of solely going off the RRP of items to determine their quality, I suspect this is not the first time you have been 'fooled' into buying an inferior product. My only suggestion for you would be to learn from this and ensure that it is your last.
[/FONT]

Dave-o

Sorry CoolHotCold, I am not sure what you could do to help here - do you work for PC World? It was a Panasonic Lumix FS16 if that assists.

I agree that camera quality cannot entirely be measured by the RRP but would a reasonable consumer not think that a $200 compact is better than a $110 one?

D