Toby Carvery charged sunday prices on a monday

Azari

Evilm wrote: »

Its not my consumer right to expect a business to capitulate to my invalid assumption.

That may well be the case but in this instance there was no 'assumption' .

There was a clear and unambiguous offer of meals at a certain price and it was the business that made the faulty assumption that 'everyone knew' that when they said Monday they actually meant something else.

I thought it was standard knowledge that most "Sunday" rules apply to Bank Holidays

Well, that just shows the danger of making unwarranted assumptions, doesn't it.

and is something I personally would have checked.

Interesting. You claim that 'everyone knows' that Monday doesn't mean Monday and yet you would feel the need to check. (It's another failing in logic to assume that because you know some 'fact', and would thus feel the need to check, someone who is completely unaware of that 'fact' would similarly feel the need to check.)

Anyway, whatever your personal feelings, the law is quite clear on the matter. Once you make an invitation to treat on some terms it is your responsibility to make it clear that you are not accepting the offer on those terms before you accept the contract.

CoolHotCold

As it stands, it's a civil matter not a police matter.

IF you refused to pay then it would become a criminal matter of theft/misappropriation/some legalese I'm not paid enough to know.

You should of paid and gotten a written statement from the manager that he understands you were paying under duress and then follow up later, you loose none of your rights and can claim the money later through the company or courts if you are so inclined.

Also, not criticising, but you could of handled it in a better way, from the sounds of it you were sitting in front of your family and friends arguing about the price to the waiter and manager, it would of been better to talk to the manager/waiter away from the table at the bar as its human instinct to become defensive when approached/talking by a group of people, you probably would of gotten the outcome you wanted and also none of your family or friends would be unhappy about the arguments/non the wiser.

NBLondon

On the basis of the sign outside (as photographed); pianoplayer would be justified in assuming that was the prevailing price. I would have been suspicious that it apparently excluded Sundays when that's the traditional day for people to eat roasts in England :-)

If it hadn't been pointed out here; I wouldn't expect Sunday prices to be higher so I wouldn't expect a BH to follow suit. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that BH opening hours or timetable were the same as Sunday but not a price change.

So, IMHO, the waiter should have mentioned at the point of ordering that the higher price was applicable and pointed out the Sunday menu. If pianoplayer actually said "We'll have the £5.95 carvery deal"; the waiter should have noticed and commented. If pianoplayer actually said "Can we have the carvery deal on the sign please?" and the waiter accepted it then I think the price was agreed at that point.

pianoplayer

CoolHotCold wrote: »

As it stands, it's a civil matter not a police matter.

IF you refused to pay then it would become a criminal matter of theft/misappropriation/some legalese I'm not paid enough to know.

Yes that was understood, the difficulty I had was that the manager refused to accept a lesser amount which was the advertised price along with my details to take it up with head office.

CoolHotCold wrote: »

You should of paid and gotten a written statement from the manager that he understands you were paying under duress and then follow up later, you loose none of your rights and can claim the money later through the company or courts if you are so inclined.

Yes good point and one I will bear in mind along with writing paid under duress, bill in Dispute on the receipts.

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Also, not criticising, but you could of handled it in a better way, from the sounds of it you were sitting in front of your family and friends arguing about the price to the waiter and manager, it would of been better to talk to the manager/waiter away from the table at the bar as its human instinct to become defensive when approached/talking by a group of people, you probably would of gotten the outcome you wanted and also none of your family or friends would be unhappy about the arguments/non the wiser.

I'm Afraid that is not what happened as below from my letter
", after asking twice, presented with our bill.
I queried the amount with the waiter as it was not as advertised outside the restaurant at £5.95, a copy of the signage is attached.
The waiter said that he would fetch a manager, he did not, he spent the next 10 minutes seating people at tables around us and loudly proclaiming to them that today the meals are at Sunday prices. I personally went and sought out a manager and took the issue up with him directly" I was on my own discussing with the manager and the waiter in front of the till until my party wondered why it was taking so long to resolve.

NBLondon:
As I recall the waiter asked what would we like and we all said we wanted the carvery.

Sheldon_Cooper

The law if clear on this. That is why when offers have exclusions they always have asterisks by the main offer line. It is not enough that the exclusion is mentioned elsewhere in smaller type, even if it is on the same notice. The retailer is not entitled to assume that the customer will see the exclusion but must draw their attention to it. Of course, this is not of any great importance in most cases as there is no contract until the customer accepts the price at the point of sale, but where one side of the contract is completed before payment it becomes vital. That is why Trading Standards said what they did.

fluffnutter

Life's too short. Seriously, life's way too short to get your panties in a tangle over a "Sunday menus on a bank holiday - deception??" scandal at a shite carvery.

If you don't like it, complain about it at the time. But wasting any more energy on complaints to head office, complaints to trading standards and threads on consumer advice sites about whether it's legal or not is an overreaction that will do little more than send you to an early grave. Indulging your sense of aggrievement over this is just that - indulgent.

Moglex

fluffnutter wrote: »

Life's too short. Seriously, life's way too short to get your panties in a tangle over a "Sunday menus on a bank holiday - deception??" scandal at a shite carvery.

If you don't like it, complain about it at the time. But wasting any more energy on complaints to head office, complaints to trading standards and threads on consumer advice sites about whether it's legal or not is an overreaction that will do little more than send you to an early grave. Indulging your sense of aggrievement over this is just that - indulgent.

To be brutally honest, those comments apply to a goodly proportion of the threads on this forum. But that isn't really the point. When people feel aggrieved they are entitled to vent here. That's why they put 'vent' in the title. I think the real problem is people who cannot just let someone vent but have to try to ridicule them, often on the basis of serious misunderstandings on their own part. (Not saying you are doing this.)

And, really, this case is not that trivial. If you have a tight budget and had expected to pay a certain sum, it is quite reasonable to be annoyed if you find that you have to pay over 50% extra and are not informed of this until well beyond the point at which you can change your mind.

fluffnutter

Moglex wrote: »

To be brutally honest, those comments apply to a goodly proportion of the threads on this forum. But that isn't really the point. When people feel aggrieved they are entitled to vent here. That's why they put 'vent' in the title. I think the real problem is people who cannot just let someone vent but have to try to ridicule them, often on the basis of serious misunderstandings on their own part. (Not saying you are doing this.)

And, really, this case is not that trivial. If you have a tight budget and had expected to pay a certain sum, it is quite reasonable to be annoyed if you find that you have to pay over 50% extra and are not informed of this until well beyond the point at which you can change your mind.

I agree. Perhaps I've been a little harsh. (TBH, I flip between Praise, Vent and Warnings and Consumer Rights and never notice which board I'm on. The OP has every right to vent, of course).

However, the time to resolve this is at the restaurant. If the OP felt tricked into paying a higher price, he or she is perfectly within his or her legal rights to pay a lower price, leave some details and let the restaurant decide whether they wanted to pursue him/her in court for the balance.

Far better to sort these things out at the time and move on. There's no barrier to saying 'You've not made it clear that Sunday prices will be charged, therefore I'm only paying the usual weekday price". If you don't get the quality/service etc. you expect you're legally entitled to pay what you think it's worth.

trukdiver

Evilm wrote: »

I thought it was standard knowledge that most "Sunday" rules apply to Bank Holidays and is something I personally would have checked.

Not necessarilly. O2 treats bank holidays as weekdays when charging for calls.

Also, Sunday trading laws don't apply on bank holidays so supermarkets can open at their normal weekday times - I was surprised to find Lidl was still open at 18:00 on the bank holiday.

MarkLS12

For any bank holiday, the default position is to expect service in shops and restaurants to be the "same as Sunday" unless otherwise stated.
It's not a weekday.