Consumer rights

[Deleted User]

stephenliverpool1 wrote: »

Why has this thread suddenly appeared on the the TV Moneysaving board ?

Because the Op of the thread decided to post it here.

The answer is the same regardless of which forum it is posted to.

unholyangel

Becky-boo wrote: »

Thanks very much for your replies I was simply asking a question. I probably was a little foolish by not checking the dates but after been up all night with a terminally Ill relative the last thing on my mind was to check if the products in my trolley was all in date. I wasn't acually looking for compensation like I told the store ..... I thought it was a criminal affence to sell out of date prepacked chilled food, Forgive me if I'm wrong. Thanks again :-)

If it was a best before date, no offence has been committed. If it was use by, then technically an offence may have been committed but the retailer will use due diligence as a defence.

Use by – criminal offence – defence

Selling food past its use by is a criminal offence. It is a strict liability offence which means Trading Standards do not have to show the shop knew it was selling foods past its use by date – this means the shop can be guilty of an offence if they have been lazy and haven’t bothered to carry out checks.

However, there is something known as the ‘due diligence defence’. This gives the retailer a defence if they can show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the sale of food past its use by date. Therefore it is not always as simple as finding an out of date product and saying an offence has been committed and the shop can be prosecuted. A Trading Standards Officer may need to look at the shops records to see what systems they have in place to prevent the sale food past its use by, for example, what checks they carry out, what training staff receive, whether records are kept and so on.

Use by – criminal offence – enforcement

Some people may think that if food is found on sale past its use by date the shop should automatically be prosecuted. After all if they have broken the law they should be punished – and a message will be sent to others to act as a deterrent.

I have sympathy with this view – but you have to bear in mind that Trading Standards enforce hundreds of laws. In the grand scheme of things a use by offence might be quite minor and we only have limited resources. Prosecutions are resource intensive and many Trading Standards are being severely cut. Therefore we have to use our resources carefully and only prosecute where necessary.

Each Trading Standards will have a different approach to dealing with enforcement of use by offences.

In my department if we find small amounts of food past its use by then the shop may just get a warning. A prosecution will only happen if the amount on sale is quite large or many days past its use by or if the shop has already been advised/warned.

As others have said though - even if TS did prosecute, you wouldnt benefit from that in any way whatsoever. You really should have taken the £5/flowers while you had the chance.

keyser666

I see the children aint been mentioned yet

System

or the nuns with the kittens

SnowTiger

keyser666 wrote: »

I see the children aint been mentioned yet

Doesn't a terminally ill relative trump children?

Fosterdog

SnowTiger wrote: »

Doesn't a terminally ill relative trump children?

I think children are slightly more important than the terminally ill relative but terminally ill children are the most important and trumps all else.

stevemLS

I wasn't aware that nearly eating out of date scotch eggs caused terminal illness.

I have learned something today.

somethingcorporate

stevemLS wrote: »

I wasn't aware that nearly eating out of date scotch eggs caused terminal illness.

I have learned something today.

Terminal stupidity probably.