Refusing to pay restaurant bill

meer53

I think your reaction and demands were way OTT.

dacouch

Would be interesting to know if the party immediately stopped eating their meals and refused the sweets on discovery of the foreign object or continued dining before refusing to pay for the meals

somethingcorporate

Way OTT, totally taking advantage of the situation.

I'd have made sure I would have taken all your meals away the second you declined to pay. Or did you eat and then refuse to pay? which is just taking the mick.

I'd have also spat in your complimentary drinks I would have brought you to apologise

giraffe69

you posting that is suppose to upset me or something

You call OP " nothing more than a half wit" and then get upset because someone points out that you can't, won't or haven't used the correct part of speech. Are you a bit over-sensitive?

ellay864

I'd like OP to name the restaurant as I'd say their customer service is excellent if they just acknowledge OP had over-reacted and abused the situation but not make a fuss and insist he pays more. Totally ridiculous to expect the whole meal should be free on the basis of that little incident.
I recently found a hair in a meal I'd almost finished and at the same time my son found a small piece of plastic wrapper in his. Neither of us wanted a replacement meal as we had both eaten a good starter and the majority of our mains before finding the objects, and we intended on having dessert. But we informed the manager right away and asked if some adjustment could be made to the bill. He knocked 25% off the whole bill which was meal and drink for 5, plenty adequate compensation

transient

Agree with every post above apart from the half wit nugget. Below sums it up perfectly for me

the

ellay864 wrote: »

I'd like OP to name the restaurant as I'd say their customer service is excellent if they just acknowledge OP had over-reacted and abused the situation but not make a fuss and insist he pays more. Totally ridiculous to expect the whole meal should be free on the basis of that little incident.
I recently found a hair in a meal I'd almost finished and at the same time my son found a small piece of plastic wrapper in his. Neither of us wanted a replacement meal as we had both eaten a good starter and the majority of our mains before finding the objects, and we intended on having dessert. But we informed the manager right away and asked if some adjustment could be made to the bill. He knocked 25% off the whole bill which was meal and drink for 5, plenty adequate compensation

Tina20

While training to be a chef a long while ago, my tutor told us that diners in the restaurant have a right to refuse to pay for the meal.

She said that's because a restaurant should be providing food and atmosphere that you enjoy, and if you didn't enjoy it you don't have to pay!

No idea if she was right, but if she was then you did have a right to refuse payment. Although morally, it's a bit dodgy


She also said that every customer has the right to inspect the kitchen of whichever eating establishment they are in. Whether it's the ritz or mc donalds, they have to be willing to show you the kitchen.

Interesting

vaio

yep, as with all goods/services you buy you can refuse to pay but equally the restaurant has the right to sue you for the unpaid bill.

As for punters having the right to inspect kitchens, doesn't sound likely to me. They have the right to ask to inspect and the restaurant have the right to refuse (unless the punter is undercover Environmental Health).

prowla

pcombo wrote: »

and what you posting that is suppose to upset me or something, are you the forum police or something nothing better to do with your time than try and bring people down.

stupid person that you are.

maybe you can correct this post down to the last full stop or comma.

Ah - you called the OP a half-wit, and now me stupid.

It's certainly good to have a reasoned debate, anyway!

prowla

I would have thought that allowing punters into the kitchen could itself lead to possible breaches of H&S.

Back to the OP, I think that a 50% reduction would have been appropriate.